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 case involves a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by the National Education Association of New Mexico, Central Consolidated Educational Association, and April Baisan against the Central Consolidated School District and Don Levinski, Superintendent. The petitioners sought mandamus relief, which typically requires a government official or entity to perform a duty they are legally obligated to perform.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioners-Appellees: Argued for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, requesting an indeterminate amount of damages, attorney fees, and costs.
• Respondents-Appellants: Contended that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter and should have denied the petition for writ of mandamus. They also argued that the issue of damages was not intertwined with the underlying issue of whether Ms. Baisan is entitled to a hearing before the local school board.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion by certifying the writ for immediate appeal despite the writ or the order denying reconsideration of the writ not resolving the single claim for mandamus relief.
• Whether the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the petition for writ of mandamus.
• Whether the issue of damages is intertwined with the underlying issue of Ms. Baisan's entitlement to a hearing before the local school board.

Disposition

• The appeal from the district court’s order denying the motion for reconsideration of the issuance of the writ of mandamus was dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order.
• The petitioners' request for attorney fees on appeal was denied.

Reasons

• JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring):
  The Court of Appeals determined that the respondents sought to appeal from a non-final order, as the single claim for mandamus relief had not been resolved due to the indeterminate award of damages, attorney fees, and costs (paras 1-2).
  The court found that the district court abused its discretion in certifying the writ for immediate appeal because the writ or the order denying reconsideration of the writ did not dispose of any one claim fully, particularly where the amount of damages was not resolved (para 2).
  Respondents' arguments regarding the district court's jurisdiction and the separation of the issue of damages from the entitlement to a hearing were not persuasive. The court emphasized that the district court improperly determined there were multiple claims in this mandanus action and certified its decision on one of those claims for immediate review, which was inappropriate (paras 3-5).
  The court concluded that the respondents should await appeal upon the entry of a final determination of damages, costs, and disbursements, as required by statute, dismissing the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order (paras 5-6).