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 sued the Defendant, an insurance company, alleging bad faith, fraud, constructive fraud, and other torts. The dispute arose from the Defendant's failure to produce certain documents requested by the Plaintiffs during discovery (para 2).

Procedural History

• District Court, October 30, 2001: The trial court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to compel the Defendant to produce documents (para 2).
• District Court, November 13, 2001: The trial court issued an order compelling the Defendant to produce the documents (para 3).
• District Court, December 7, 2001: The trial court denied the Defendant's motion for reconsideration and vacated a previously scheduled evidentiary hearing (para 3).
• District Court, December 18, 2001: The trial court entered an order denying the Defendant's motion for reconsideration and request for an evidentiary hearing (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that the Defendant's petition for a writ of error was untimely because it was filed one day after the 30-day deadline set by Rule 12-503(C) NMRA 2003 (para 6).
• Defendant: Contended that the 30-day period for filing the petition should have started after the trial court denied its motion for reconsideration, making the petition timely (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Was the Defendant's petition for a writ of error filed within the 30-day deadline prescribed by Rule 12-503(C) NMRA 2003?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals quashed the Defendant's writ of error, finding it untimely (para 7).

Reasons

Per Kennedy J. (Alarid and Castillo JJ. concurring):

The Court held that Rule 12-503(C) NMRA 2003 explicitly requires a petition for a writ of error to be filed within 30 days of the order being filed in the district court clerk's office. The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that the filing deadline should be extended by the pendency of a motion for reconsideration, emphasizing that appellate courts lack the authority to extend filing deadlines absent statutory or rule-based provisions (para 7). The Defendant's petition, filed 31 days after the trial court's November 13, 2001, order, was therefore untimely, and the Court lacked jurisdiction to review the case (para 7).

The Court also admonished both parties' counsel for procedural and substantive deficiencies in their submissions. Plaintiffs' counsel was criticized for including irrelevant attachments and excessive formatting in briefs, while the Defendant's counsel was admonished for failing to address relevant New Mexico case law and misrepresenting the issues on appeal (paras 8-10).