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

• Gabriel Becerra, acting pro se, sought to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to amend his counterclaim against Allstate. The district court had previously denied Becerra's motion to amend his counterclaim, which he then sought to alter or amend. This appeal follows the district court's decision.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, September 10, 2012: Denied Becerra's motion to alter or amend the judgment regarding his motion to amend his counterclaim.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the district court's denial of his motion to amend the counterclaim would result in his cause of action being lost or irreparably harmed due to issues of waiver and estoppel. He also contended that the matter was of significant importance and required immediate appellate review.
• Respondent-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's denial of the motion to amend the counterclaim constitutes a final, appealable order.
• Whether the appellant's cause of action would be irreparably lost or damaged as a result of the district court's denial to amend the counterclaim.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of a final order.

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Linda M. Vanzi, with Judges James J. Wechsler and Jonathan B. Sutin concurring, found several reasons to dismiss the appeal. Firstly, the Court determined that the appellant's motion to amend the docketing statement was untimely (para 2). The Court emphasized that its jurisdiction is derived from final, appealable orders, and an order is not considered final unless it resolves all issues of law and fact to the fullest extent possible by the trial court (paras 3-4). The Court concluded that the district court's denial of the motion to amend the counterclaim and its order denying reconsideration were not final appealable orders because other claims and counterclaims involving the parties remained to be litigated (para 5). The appellant's memorandum in opposition did not sufficiently demonstrate how his cause of action would be irreparably lost or damaged, nor did it provide adequate support for the claims of necessity for immediate appellate review or the significance of the issues raised (paras 6-7). Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal but noted that the appellant could appeal once the district court enters a final order in the case (para 8).