Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,472 documents
Decision Content
MENDEZ V. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, INC.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.
EDWARD F. MENDEZ and
RAYMOND J. MCQUEEN,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, INC. d/b/a
VERIZON WIRELESS, INC.; GO WIRELESS
INC.; CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC.;
NORTH SHORE AGENCY; IC SYSTEM;
RECEIVABLE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT,
LLC; NATIONS RECOVERY CENTER, INC.;
NANCY B. CLARK, SVP-OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE
and TERRI WALKER, EXECUTIVE RELATIONS,
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, INC. d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. A-1-CA-35893
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
April 2, 2018
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY,
RAYMOND Z. ORTIZ, District Judge
COUNSEL
Raymond J. McQueen, Santa Fe, NM, Pro Se Appellant
Edward F. Mendez, Santa Fe, NM, Pro Se Appellant
Hinkle Shanor LLP, Benjamin F. Feuchter, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellees
JUDGES
J. MILES HANISEE, Judge. WE CONCUR: M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HANISEE, Judge.
{1} Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s order granting (1) motion to dismiss first amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and (2) motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. This Court issued a second calendar notice proposing to affirm the district court’s order on February 6, 2018. On February 27, 2018, Defendants filed a memorandum in support of this Court’s second notice of proposed disposition. On March 1, 2018, Defendant Nations Recovery Center, Inc. joined in the memorandum in support filed on February 27, 2018. To this date, Plaintiffs have not filed a memorandum in opposition to this Court’s second notice of proposed disposition, and the time for doing so has now run. Accordingly, we rely on the reasoning set out in this Court’s second notice of proposed disposition and we affirm.
{2} IT IS SO ORDERED.
J. MILES HANSIEE, Judge
WE CONCUR:
M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge