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 Plaintiff, acting as the next friend and parent of a minor, sought an extension of time to file a docketing statement in an appeal against the Defendant, the School Board of Albuquerque Public School System. The delay in filing was attributed to a calendaring mistake. The Defendant opposed the motion, arguing that the timely filing of a docketing statement was jurisdictional and that the court lacked authority to grant an extension (paras 1, 5).
Procedural History
- [Not applicable or not found]
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the delay in filing the docketing statement was due to a calendaring mistake and requested an extension of time to file the statement (para 5).
- Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the timely filing of a docketing statement was jurisdictional and that the court lacked authority to grant an extension. Additionally, the Defendant argued that strict adherence to procedural rules was necessary to manage the court's backlog (paras 2, 4, 6).
Legal Issues
- Does the failure to file a docketing statement on time deprive the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction over the appeal?
- Does the Court of Appeals have the authority to grant an extension of time to file a docketing statement upon a showing of good cause?
Disposition
- The motion for an extension of time to file the docketing statement was granted (para 7).
Reasons
Per Apodaca J. (Donnelly and Minzner JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the failure to file a docketing statement on time does not deprive the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction over the appeal. The Court distinguished between the timely filing of a docketing statement and its contents, emphasizing that the former is not jurisdictional. The Court relied on precedent, including Schmitz v. Smentowski and Gallegos v. Citizens Insurance Agency, to clarify that jurisdiction is not lost due to a late filing, provided there is good cause for the delay (paras 2-3).
The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that the absence of explicit language in the rules precludes the Court from granting extensions. It cited State v. Brionez to affirm its authority to grant such extensions (para 4). The Court also found that the Plaintiff demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay, as it was due to a calendaring mistake (para 5).
Finally, the Court declined to adopt the Defendant's argument that strict adherence to procedural rules is necessary to manage the court's backlog. It emphasized that appellate courts should prioritize resolving cases on their merits rather than dismissing appeals based on minor procedural delays, particularly when the delay is only a few days (para 6).