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 arises from a dispute involving a default judgment entered against the Defendants. The Defendants sought to set aside the default judgment, arguing that it improperly precluded them from presenting their counterclaim for malicious abuse of process. The Plaintiffs had filed an answer to the counterclaim, treating it as a live issue before the district court. The district court denied the Defendants' motion to set aside the default judgment but did not explicitly address or strike the counterclaim.

Procedural History

• District Court, Curry County: The district court entered a default judgment against the Defendants and later denied their motion to set aside the default judgment. The court did not explicitly address the Defendants' counterclaim for malicious abuse of process.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants (Defendants): Argued that the district court's denial of their motion to set aside the default judgment effectively disposed of their counterclaim, as it precluded them from pleading further. They contended that this denial constituted a final order, allowing for an appeal.
• Appellees (Plaintiffs): Did not move to strike the Defendants' counterclaim and instead filed an answer to it, treating the counterclaim as a live issue before the district court.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's order denying the Defendants' motion to set aside the default judgment constituted a final, appealable order.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the Defendants' appeal for lack of a final order.

Reasons

Per Sutin J. (Fry C.J. and Castillo J. concurring):
The Court of Appeals determined that its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing final judgments or orders that dispose of all issues or substantially affect the rights of the parties. The district court's order denying the Defendants' motion to set aside the default judgment did not address or resolve the Defendants' counterclaim for malicious abuse of process. The counterclaim remained pending, and the district court's order lacked the certification language required under Rule 1-054(B)(1) NMRA to render it final. The Court noted that the Defendants could appeal the denial of their motion once the district court either resolves the counterclaim, dismisses or strikes it, or certifies the order as final under Rule 1-054(B)(1).