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 Plaintiffs filed a case against the Defendants, alleging claims that are not specified in the decision. The dispute led to litigation, but the specific events or facts underlying the claims are not detailed in the memorandum opinion.

Procedural History

• District Court, Otero County: The case was dismissed under Rule 1-041(E)(1) NMRA for lack of timely action by the Plaintiffs.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that they had engaged in timely action in pursuit of their claims before the Defendants filed their motion to dismiss.
• Defendants-Appellees: Did not oppose the Court of Appeals' proposed summary reversal of the district court's dismissal.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in dismissing the Plaintiffs' case under Rule 1-041(E)(1) NMRA for lack of timely action.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal of the case.

Reasons

Per Castillo J. (Bustamante and Vigil JJ. concurring):
The Court of Appeals issued a calendar notice proposing summary reversal of the district court's dismissal, reasoning that the Plaintiffs had engaged in timely action in pursuit of their claims. The Defendants did not oppose the proposed reversal. Based on the reasons outlined in the calendar notice, the Court reversed the district court's decision. (headnotes)