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 the Plaintiffs, Rod Forsythe, individually and as the Personal Representative for the Wrongful Death Estate of his daughter, Ashley Forsythe; Christine Forsythe, mother; and Danisha Goldberg, sister, filing against Ford Motor Company and other defendants. The Plaintiffs sought an extension of time to file their notice of appeal, which was granted by the district court but contested by Ford Motor Company on the grounds of excusable neglect.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellees: Argued that the delay in filing the notice of appeal was due to a clerical error by counsel and that they had presented additional facts and expanded their argument at hearings before the district court.
• Defendant-Appellant (Ford Motor Company): Contended that the Plaintiffs had not met the standard of excusable neglect necessary to support the extension of time to file their notice of appeal.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting Plaintiffs an extension of time to file their notice of appeal based on the standard of excusable neglect.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time to file their notice of appeal and denied the Defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the same.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge, ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge concurring): The Court of Appeals found that the district court had abused its discretion in granting the extension for filing the notice of appeal. The Court emphasized that the standard for excusable neglect must be strictly construed to prevent erosion of the filing deadlines. It was determined that the Plaintiffs' circumstances, described as a routine clerical error by counsel, did not rise to the level of excusable neglect as required by New Mexico case law. The Court also noted that Plaintiffs' arguments relying on out-of-jurisdiction citations and federal treatises were not persuasive in the context of New Mexico procedural rules. Consequently, the Court reversed the district court's decision and issued an order dismissing the merits of the untimely appeal (paras 1-6).