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 Plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and damages against the Defendants. The case was dismissed twice for lack of prosecution, the second dismissal occurring on April 13, 2016. The Plaintiff filed a timely motion to reinstate the case, which was denied by the district court. The Plaintiff then filed a motion to reconsider the denial, which is the subject of this appeal (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• April 13, 2016, District Court of Bernalillo County: Case dismissed for the second time for lack of prosecution.
• September 26, 2016, District Court of Bernalillo County: Plaintiff's motion for reinstatement denied.
• November 7, 2016, District Court of Bernalillo County: Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration denied.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the district court erred in denying its motion to reconsider the earlier order denying Plaintiff’s motion to reinstate the case. Contended that discovery served the day before the dismissal should render the analysis of delay "wholly without justification" moot and that the district court improperly conflated two rules during the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to reinstate the case (paras 1, 4).
• Defendants: Filed a response to Plaintiff's motion to reinstate the case, opposing it. Specific arguments made by the Defendants are not detailed in the decision (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the earlier order that denied Plaintiff’s motion to reinstate the case.
• Whether the service of discovery the day before the dismissal affects the analysis of delay being "wholly without justification."
• Whether the district court improperly conflated Rule 1-041(E)(1) and Rule 1-041(E)(2) during the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to reinstate the case (paras 3-7).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the earlier order denying Plaintiff’s motion to reinstate the case (para 8).

Reasons

• J. Miles Hanisee, Judge, with Jonathan B. Sutin and M. Monica Zamora, Judges concurring, found that the Plaintiff did not establish that the delay in prosecution was not wholly without justification. The court noted that more than 180 days had passed without any significant action in connection with the claims in this case, justifying the district court's dismissal without prejudice under Rule 1-041(E)(2). The court was not persuaded by Plaintiff's contention that discovery served the day before the dismissal rendered the analysis of delay moot or that the district court conflated two different rules during the hearing. The Plaintiff's failure to show good cause for reinstatement led to the affirmation of the district court's decisions (paras 3-8).