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 protective order issued against the Appellant by the district court. The Appellee alleged that the Appellant engaged in harassing behavior, including photographing and recording her, and exhibited manipulative and controlling behavior, which caused her severe emotional distress (paras 4-5).
Procedural History
- District Court, August 1, 2024: Issued a protective order against the Appellant.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant: Argued that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to deny his motion to reconsider because it took more than thirty days to rule. He also contended that there was insufficient evidence to support the protective order, claiming that his actions served a lawful purpose and that the Appellee was not credible (paras 2-4).
- Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to deny the Appellant's motion to reconsider.
- Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the issuance of a protective order against the Appellant.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order of protection against the Appellant (para 11).
Reasons
Per Wray J. (Ives and Baca JJ. concurring): The Court found that the district court had jurisdiction to rule on the motion to reconsider, as the automatic denial provision in Section 39-1-1 was superseded by amendments to the relevant rules, eliminating the automatic denial of post-judgment motions (para 3). The Court also determined that there was sufficient evidence to support the protective order, as the district court found the Appellee to be a vulnerable woman who was manipulated and harassed by the Appellant, causing her severe emotional distress (paras 5-6). The Court declined to reweigh the evidence or consider new factual assertions not part of the record (paras 5, 9). The Appellant's claims of judicial bias and ex parte communications were unsupported by sufficient facts or authority (paras 8-10).