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 case arose from a dispute between a general partnership and a corporation over the right of first refusal provision in their partnership agreement. The district court determined that the provision had been activated, awarding the partnership the price of exercising the right of first refusal, with adjustments for distributions and interest. Following the judgment, the partnership filed a cost bill, which was contested for being untimely under the Rules of Civil Procedure but timely under local district court rules (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• H-B-S P'ship v. AIRCOA Hospitality Servs., Inc., 2005-NMCA-068, 137 N.M. 626, 114 P.3d 306: The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment that the right of first refusal provision had been activated (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (AIRCOA Hospitality Services, Inc.): Argued that the partnership's cost bill was untimely under Rule 1-054(D)(4) NMRA, which requires filing within 15 days of the final judgment, and that the district court erred in awarding costs (paras 3, 23).
• Appellees (H-B-S Partnership and others): Contended that the cost bill was timely under Local Rule 1-307 NMRA, which allows 20 days for filing, and that the district court had discretion to award costs despite the timing conflict (paras 3, 9).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in resolving the conflict between the Rules of Civil Procedure and local district court rules regarding the time for filing a cost bill.
• Whether the district court had discretion to award costs filed outside the time limit prescribed by Rule 1-054(D)(4) NMRA.
• Whether the costs awarded were reasonable and necessary under Rule 1-054(D) NMRA.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to award costs to the partnership (para 31).

Reasons

Per Wechsler J. (Robinson and Vigil JJ. concurring):

• Conflict Between Rules: The Court held that Rule 1-054(D)(4) NMRA, a statewide rule, supersedes Local Rule 1-307 NMRA due to the prohibition on conflicting local rules under Rule 1-083 NMRA. The partnership's cost bill was therefore untimely under Rule 1-054(D)(4) (paras 9-11).

• Discretion Under Rule 1-006(B)(2): Despite the untimeliness, the district court had discretion under Rule 1-006(B)(2) NMRA to extend the filing deadline for excusable neglect. The Court found that the district court implicitly exercised this discretion, considering the conflict between the rules as excusable neglect (paras 20-22).

• Merits of the Cost Bill: The Court reviewed the specific costs awarded:

  • Transcript Costs: Approved as historically recoverable and within the district court's discretion to allow (paras 26-27).
  • Expert Witness Fees and Related Expenses: Affirmed as reasonable and necessary for the creation of the expert's opinion, with the district court providing justification for the award (paras 28-29).
  • Deposition Costs: Allowed as the depositions were used in trial preparation, and the appellant failed to provide authority to challenge their recoverability (para 30).

• Conclusion: The district court's decision to award costs was affirmed as it acted within its discretion and provided sufficient justification for the awards (para 31).