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 Plaintiffs, acting pro se, initiated a legal dispute against the Defendants, including individuals and entities, over issues that culminated in a jury trial. The case involved claims and counterclaims, but the specific factual background leading to the dispute is not detailed in the decision.
Procedural History
- District Court of Otero County: The district court entered judgment in favor of the Defendants following a jury trial. It also struck an earlier order granting partial summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs during a pre-trial conference.
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that the district court erred in striking the partial summary judgment order entered in their favor during the pre-trial conference. They also challenged the district court’s handling of the pre-trial conference and the final order directing a verdict in favor of the Defendants.
- Defendants-Appellees: Agreed with the proposed summary disposition by the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court’s decision in part and dismissed the remainder of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court erred in striking the partial summary judgment order entered in favor of the Plaintiffs during the pre-trial conference.
- Whether the Plaintiffs’ appeal regarding the district court’s handling of the pre-trial conference and the final order directing a verdict in favor of the Defendants was timely filed.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to strike the partial summary judgment order.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the remainder of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction due to the untimely filing of the notice of appeal.
Reasons
Per Vigil J. (Wechsler and Vanzi JJ. concurring):
The Court of Appeals relied on its analysis in the calendar notice to resolve the appeal. Both parties agreed with the proposed summary disposition, which affirmed the district court’s decision to strike the partial summary judgment order and dismissed the remainder of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the untimely filing of the notice of appeal precluded it from addressing certain issues raised by the Plaintiffs.