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 sought to set aside a summary judgment order granted in favor of the Defendant. They argued that the order was void because it was not submitted to their counsel for approval in accordance with Rule 1-058(C) NMRA. The Plaintiffs contended that this procedural failure rendered the order a nullity.

Procedural History

• District Court, San Miguel County: Summary judgment was granted in favor of the Defendant.
• New Mexico Court of Appeals, April 26, 2007 (No. 27,471): The Plaintiffs’ prior appeal was dismissed as untimely, and the Court held that failure to comply with Rule 1-058(C) NMRA did not render the order void.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that the summary judgment order was void due to non-compliance with Rule 1-058(C) NMRA, which requires submission of the order to opposing counsel for approval. They claimed this procedural failure invalidated the order.
• Defendant-Appellee: Asserted that the procedural failure did not render the order void and relied on the Court’s prior decision, which rejected the Plaintiffs’ argument.

Legal Issues

• Did the district court err in denying the Plaintiffs’ Rule 1-060(B)(4) motion to set aside the summary judgment order as void?

Disposition

• The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the Plaintiffs’ Rule 1-060(B)(4) motion.

Reasons

Per Castillo J. (Sutin C.J. and Robles J. concurring):

The Court held that the failure to comply with Rule 1-058(C) NMRA did not render the summary judgment order void. It noted that the Plaintiffs had not cited any authority to support their argument, and the Court had previously rejected this contention in the Plaintiffs’ prior appeal. The Court emphasized that procedural errors under Rule 1-058(C) are subject to a harmless error analysis under Rule 1-061 NMRA, and the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the procedural failure. The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs’ disagreement was with the substance of the summary judgment ruling, not the form of the order. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying the Rule 1-060(B)(4) motion.