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 Appellant failed to file a notice of appeal within the required 30-day period following a district court order awarding costs to the Appellee for expert services. The delay occurred because the Appellant’s attorney did not calendar the filing deadline and only realized the oversight after the deadline had passed. The Appellant sought an extension of time to file the notice of appeal, arguing that the delay was not prejudicial, did not affect the proceedings, and was not made in bad faith.

Procedural History

• District Court, November 12, 2009: The district court issued an order awarding costs to the Appellee for expert services.
• District Court, December 2009: The district court denied the Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the delay in filing the notice of appeal was not prejudicial to the Appellee, did not affect the proceedings, and was not made in bad faith. However, the Appellant did not claim that the delay was due to circumstances beyond its control.
• Appellee: Did not file a formal response to the motion but submitted a letter to the district judge stating that the motion could be ruled upon without a response and attached a proposed order denying the motion. The Appellee did not object to a hearing if the judge deemed it necessary.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
• Whether the district court erred in failing to conduct a hearing on the motion for an extension of time.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
• The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not err in failing to conduct a hearing on the motion.

Reasons

Per Cynthia A. Fry, Chief Judge (Wechsler and Vanzi JJ. concurring):

The Court of Appeals reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. Under Rule 12-201(E)(2) NMRA, a party seeking an extension of time after the 30-day deadline must demonstrate “excusable neglect or circumstances beyond the control of the appellant.” The Court emphasized that attorney carelessness, such as failing to calendar a deadline, does not constitute excusable neglect. The Court relied on precedent from Capco Acquisub, Inc. v. Greka Energy Corp., which held that excusable neglect under Rule 12-201(E)(2) must be strictly construed, and attorney errors or workload are insufficient to meet this standard.

The Appellant’s reliance on Kinder Morgan CO2 Co., L.P. v. State Taxation and Revenue Department was misplaced, as that case concerned Rule 1-060(B)(1) NMRA, which applies a more liberal standard for excusable neglect. The Court reiterated that the stricter standard under Rule 12-201(E)(2) applied in this case.

The Court also found no error in the district court’s decision not to hold a hearing, as the Appellant’s motion did not present any compelling arguments or evidence that would have warranted further consideration.