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on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
STEVEN CHRISTOFFEL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JACK CLOUD, as Planning
Department Manager of the City
of Albuquerque, and the CITY OF
ALBUQUERQUE,
Defendants-Appellees,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY, Clay
Campbell, District Judge
Steven G. Christoffel, Albuquerque, NM,
Pro Se Appellant
City of Albuquerque, Jessica M.
Hernandez, City Attorney, John E. Dubois, Assistant City Attorney, Albuquerque,
NM, for Appellees
M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge. WE CONCUR:
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge
{1} Plaintiff has
appealed from the denial of a Rule
1-060(B) NMRA motion for relief from a
previously entered judgment dismissing his claims. We issued a notice of
proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to affirm. Plaintiff has
filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Because we
remain unpersuaded, we affirm.
{2} We previously
described the pertinent background and applicable principles of law in the
notice of proposed summary disposition. We will avoid undue reiteration here.
However, because the memorandum in opposition contains very little to
distinguish it from the docketing statement, our analysis remains essentially
unchanged.
{3} Plaintiff continues
to argue that the ordinances, statutes, and other authorities he cited should
be regarded as newly discovered evidence. [MIO 3-27] We remain unpersuaded that
these materials, which were previously available, could not have been
discovered earlier by the exercise of due diligence.
See Rule
1-060(B)(2).
{4} We understand
Plaintiff to continue to suggest inadvertence and fraud as grounds for relief.
[MIO 3] However, he provides no further elaboration. We therefore remain
unpersuaded.
{5} Plaintiff also
appears to argue that the district court misapprehended his arguments, and as
such, it should have reconsidered. [MIO 27-29] However, insofar as Plaintiff’s
arguments essentially reiterated the arguments previously set forth and
rejected, both by the district court and this Court in the course of the prior
appeal, they were properly rejected as grounds for relief under the auspices of
Rule 1-060(B).
See DiMatteo v. Cty. of Dona Ana,
1989-NMCA-108, ¶ 25,
109 N.M. 374,
785 P.2d 285 (discussing the doctrine of law of the case);
Lenscrafters
Inc. v. Kehoe,
2012-NMSC-020, ¶ 47,
282 P.3d 758 (holding that where the
movant failed to justify the need for the district court’s reconsideration
based on any of the allowable Rule 1-060(B) exceptions, the district court did
not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration).
{6} Finally, we
understand Plaintiff to contend that he should be granted some form of relief
in order to facilitate supplementation with transcripts from the underlying
proceedings. [MIO 29-31] However, because the record before us supplies all of
the information necessary, and the transcripts with which Plaintiff seeks to
supplement the record would have no impact upon our analysis, we reject
Plaintiff’s argument.
See Udall v. Townsend,
1998-NMCA-162, ¶ 3,
126
N.M. 251,
968 P.2d 341 (explaining that where the Court can obtain sufficient
information from the record proper, the docketing statement, and the memoranda
to enable it to resolve the issues, then assignment to the summary calendar is
appropriate, notwithstanding the unavailability of transcripts).
{7} Accordingly, for
the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary disposition and above, we
affirm.