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

• Emma Serna, doing business as Serna & Associates Construction Co., L.L.C., also known as Serna & Associates, attempted to appeal various district court orders related to an arbitration award. The case involves the district court's judgment adopting the arbitration award, which Serna challenged on multiple grounds, including bias, prejudice, and impropriety by the district court judge, as well as allegations of fraud by arbitrators and corruption involving the judge and opposing counsel.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Beatrice J. Brickhouse, District Judge, to the Court of Appeals of New Mexico, with the notice of appeal docketed under Court of Appeals Case No. 34,755. This appeal was consolidated with the current case (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Emma Serna): Filed a memorandum in opposition to the court's notice of proposed disposition, along with a letter and numerous pleadings in the form of requests and motions. Serna argued against the district court's judgment, alleging bias and prejudice by the calendaring judge, and claimed the judge's adverse rulings constituted bias. She also alleged fraud by the arbitrators and corruption involving the judge and opposing counsel (paras 3-6).
• Appellees (Margette Webster and David Webster): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the appellant's letter and "Answer to Appellee’s Memorandum in Support of Summary Affirmance" conform with the Rules of Appellate Procedure regarding a proper response to a calendar notice (para 3).
• Whether the appellant's motions and requests, including the motion for the recusal of the calendaring judge for alleged bias, comply with Rule 12-309(C) NMRA and whether the allegations of bias, fraud, and corruption are substantiated (paras 4-6).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the district court's judgment adopting the arbitration award and denied all of Appellant’s requests and motions (para 8).

Reasons

• ZAMORA, Judge (with MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, and JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge concurring): The court found that the appellant's letter and answer did not conform to the Rules of Appellate Procedure for a proper response to a calendar notice. The appellant's motions and requests were denied because they did not comply with Rule 12-309(C) NMRA, which requires stating whether any party opposes the motion or explaining why the other party’s position was not obtained. The court also noted that adverse rulings do not constitute bias and that the appellant's allegations of impropriety, absent supporting legal authority, did not meet the burden on appeal. The court emphasized that a party opposing the proposed disposition must clearly point out errors in fact or law, and merely repeating earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement (paras 3-8).