Boehmer v. Project Management & Development, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 MONICA BOEHMER and STEVE KEMP, 3 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 4 v. No. A-1-CA-37164 5 PROJECT MANAGEMENT & 6 DEVELOPMENT, INC., and MICHAEL 7 S. NEAS, 8 Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellees, 9 and 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 BOTTOM DRAWER, LLC; C.M. LATH AND PLASTER, INC.; PIONEER PAVING & GRADING, INC.; STOREFRONT SPECIALTIES & GLAZING, LLC; VILLANUEVA GRANITE & TILE, INC.; ROBERT UFFER d/b/a WHOLESALE MIRROR - EASTERNGATE GLASS, INC.; H. GLENN MURRAY and JANE DOE MURRAY; H. GLENN MURRAY & ASSOC.; JOHN DOES I-X; JANE DOES I-X; WHITE CORPORATIONS I-X; BLACK PARTNERSHIPS I-X; and GRAY LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES I-X, Third-Party Defendants. 22 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 23 Clay Campbell, District Judge 1 Crowley & Gribble, PC 2 Clayton E. Crowley 3 Albuquerque, NM 4 for Appellants 5 Resnick & Louis, P.C. 6 Emily Dotson 7 Albuquerque, NM 8 for Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellees 9 10 11 12 Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A. David W. Buntin Edward Ricco Albuquerque, NM 13 for Third-Party Defendant C. M. Lath and Plaster, Inc. 14 Eaton Law Office, P.C. 15 Michael G. Smith 16 Albuquerque, NM 17 for Third-Party Defendants H. Glenn Murray and Jane Doe Murray; and H. Glenn 18 Murray & Assoc. 19 MEMORANDUM OPINION 20 VANZI, Chief Judge. 21 {1} Plaintiffs Monica Boehmer and Steve Kemp appeal from the district court’s 22 order denying their motion for reinstatement and order denying their motion to recuse. 23 In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to summarily dismiss for 24 lack of a final order. Plaintiffs filed a concurrence to proposed summary disposition, 2 1 stating that they “concur with the Notice, Proposed Summary Disposition[.]” [MIS 1] 2 Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, 3 we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order. 4 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 ______________________________ LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 7 WE CONCUR: 8 ___________________________ 9 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 10 ___________________________ 11 STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
