AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant obtained insider information about the impending sale of a company and purchased her shares at $21 per share. Shortly after, the company announced a merger valuing shares at $200 per share, and later entered a different merger valuing shares at $315 per share. The Plaintiff claimed insider trading, violations of the Unfair Practices Act (UPA), a demand for inspection of corporate records, and conspiracy against the Defendant and the company.

Procedural History

• District Court, December 6, 2006: The court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims against the company for insider trading, UPA violations, and inspection of corporate records, and granted summary judgment on the conspiracy claim. The dismissal was with prejudice and deemed a final order under Rule 1-054(B)(2) NMRA.
• District Court, January 12, 2007: The court amended its order related to claims against another Defendant, Gonzales, but did not alter the dismissal of claims against the company.
• District Court, July 12, 2007: The court denied the Plaintiff’s motion for clarification and/or reconsideration of the December 6, 2006, order, finding no clerical errors.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in dismissing her claims with prejudice, denying her leave to amend her complaint, and failing to allow discovery. She also contended that the court’s order dismissing all claims that could have been brought against the company was erroneous.
• Defendant-Appellee (Westland Development Company): Asserted that the Plaintiff’s notice of appeal was untimely and that the district court correctly dismissed the claims and denied the motion for clarification under Rule 1-060(A).

Legal Issues

• Was the Plaintiff’s notice of appeal from the December 6, 2006, order timely filed?
• Did the district court err in denying the Plaintiff’s Rule 1-060(A) motion for clarification of the December 6, 2006, order?
• Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying the Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint?

Disposition

• The appeal from the December 6, 2006, order was dismissed as untimely.
• The district court’s denial of the Plaintiff’s Rule 1-060(A) motion was affirmed.

Reasons

Per Cynthia A. Fry, Chief Judge (Wechsler and Sutin JJ. concurring):

The court found that the Plaintiff’s notice of appeal from the December 6, 2006, order was untimely, as it was filed more than thirty days after the order was entered. The Plaintiff’s Rule 1-060(A) motion did not extend the time for appealing the original order, as it sought to correct alleged clerical errors rather than challenge the correctness of the judgment.

The court determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Plaintiff’s Rule 1-060(A) motion. The motion sought to change the dismissal from “with prejudice” to “without prejudice” and to clarify the finality of the order. However, the district court found no clerical errors in its original order, and the Plaintiff’s arguments did not justify relief under Rule 1-060(A).

Regarding the Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend her complaint, the court held that the district court did not err in denying this request. The Plaintiff failed to properly move for leave to amend or provide a proposed amended complaint as required by Rule 1-007.1(C) NMRA. Additionally, the request was insufficient and untimely, as it was raised after the dismissal order was entered.