This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case involves a dispute between a New Mexico limited liability company (Plaintiff) and an individual and his associated LLC (Defendants) over a business agreement related to a cannabis business. The Plaintiff sought to open a cannabis business but faced issues with zoning laws and licensing, which the Defendants argued were misrepresented and fraudulent (paras 4-5).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, denied Defendant's motion to reconsider, and awarded costs and attorney fees to Plaintiff.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant: Argued that the district court committed plain error by granting summary judgment and denying the motion to reconsider, claiming the Plaintiff's licensing application was fraudulent and contrary to zoning laws, thus making the claims non-justiciable (paras 3-5).
- Plaintiff: Supported the district court's decision, arguing that the Defendant failed to present any material facts or legal authority to contest the summary judgment or demonstrate plain error (paras 2, 5).
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.
- Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to reconsider.
- Whether the district court had jurisdiction over the case given the alleged misrepresentations by the Plaintiff (paras 3-6).
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and deny the Defendant's motion to reconsider (para 9).
Reasons
Per Henderson J. (Attrep C.J. and Ives J. concurring): The Court found that the Defendant failed to demonstrate any errors of law or fact that would warrant reversing the district court's decision. The Defendant's arguments largely repeated those in the docketing statement without pointing to specific errors. The Court noted that the plain error rule applies only to evidentiary matters, which the Defendant did not establish. Additionally, the Defendant did not provide authority to support the claim that the district court lacked jurisdiction. The Court also found that the district court was not required to hold an in-person hearing for the motion to reconsider, and the Defendant had the opportunity to raise issues at the summary judgment stage but did not do so (paras 2-8).