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 complaint related to an incident that occurred nearly eight years prior. They alleged issues involving Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Brown Jordan International, Inc., and The Hartford Insurance Company. The Plaintiffs experienced delays in litigation, including hiring six different attorneys, one of whom engaged in ethical violations. The delays resulted in concerns about the availability of witnesses and the need to re-depose witnesses due to the passage of time.

Procedural History

• District Court, November 4, 2009: The District Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice under Rule 1-041(E)(1) NMRA for failure to take significant action to bring the claim to trial within two years.
• District Court, November 30, 2009: The Plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the dismissal order, which was denied by the District Court.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellees: Argued that the dismissal should be set aside due to inadequate representation by their attorneys and claimed improper venue in Curry County.
• Defendant/Cross-Claimant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.): Supported the dismissal, citing intentional delay by the Plaintiffs and the lack of excusable neglect.
• Defendant/Cross-Defendant-Appellee (Brown Jordan International, Inc.): [Not applicable or not found]
• Third-Party Defendant-Appellee (The Hartford Insurance Company): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the District Court abused its discretion in dismissing the Plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice under Rule 1-041(E)(1) NMRA.
• Whether the Plaintiffs demonstrated exceptional circumstances to justify setting aside the dismissal under Rule 1-060(B)(6) NMRA.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice and to deny the motion to set aside the dismissal.

Reasons

Per Castillo J. (Robles and Vanzi JJ. concurring):

The Court found that the District Court acted within its discretion in dismissing the complaint under Rule 1-041(E)(1) NMRA, as the Plaintiffs failed to take significant action to advance the case for over two years. The Court emphasized that the Plaintiffs' delays, including hiring six attorneys and filing the complaint near the expiration of the statute of limitations, indicated intentional delay rather than excusable neglect. The Court also noted that attorney neglect alone does not constitute exceptional circumstances under Rule 1-060(B)(6) NMRA. Additionally, the Plaintiffs' argument regarding improper venue was deemed waived as it was not raised at the outset of the action.