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 case involves a dispute over the ownership interest in three limited liability companies (LLCs) allegedly shared between the Decedent and the Defendant. The Decedent claimed a partnership existed with the Defendant, entitling her to ownership interests in the LLCs. The Defendant denied the existence of such a partnership and argued that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- District Court, Doña Ana County: Granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, finding that the Decedent's claims were barred by the statute of limitations and other legal grounds (paras 1-3).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in determining that the Defendant's testimony negated the formation of a partnership, that LLCs cannot be assets of a partnership, that liability for partnership debts is necessary for promissory estoppel, and that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the partnership's formation (para 1).
- Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the district court's summary judgment was based on the statute of limitations, which the Plaintiff did not contest, and thus the appeal should not address other arguments (para 1).
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on the Defendant's testimony regarding the lack of intent to form a partnership.
- Whether limited liability companies can be considered assets of a partnership.
- Whether liability for partnership debts is required to support a promissory estoppel claim.
- Whether there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the formation of a partnership.
- Whether the claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations (para 4).
Reasons
Per Black, Judge Pro Tem (Hanisee and Henderson JJ. concurring): The court found that the Plaintiff failed to address the district court's ruling on the statute of limitations in the brief in chief, effectively abandoning the issue on appeal. The court noted that the central basis for the district court's summary judgment was the statute of limitations, and since the Plaintiff did not contest this, the appeal could not succeed. The court also referenced precedent that issues not raised in the initial brief are considered abandoned (paras 4-5).