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

• Mukhtiar Khalsa sought to intervene in a foreclosure action initiated by U.S. Bank against Ruth Gallegos and others. The district court denied Khalsa's motion to intervene and issued a judgment foreclosing upon the property. Khalsa, not originally a party to the case, appealed the decision, challenging the denial of his motion to intervene and the foreclosure judgment (para 1).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Valerie A. Huling, District Judge: Denied Mukhtiar Khalsa's motion to intervene and issued a judgment foreclosing upon the property (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Mukhtiar Khalsa: Argued that U.S. Bank lacked standing to foreclose upon the property, contended that his motion to intervene was improperly denied, and noted that Plaintiff failed to file any opposition to his motion (para 2).
• U.S. Bank, National Association: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying Mukhtiar Khalsa's motion to intervene in the foreclosure action.
• Whether U.S. Bank had standing to foreclose upon the subject property.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying Mukhtiar Khalsa's motion to intervene and the judgment foreclosing upon the property (para 7).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge concurring):
  The Court of Appeals found that Mukhtiar Khalsa was not a party to the case below and thus, no motion to dismiss filed by him was part of the record. This absence precluded appellate review of any grounds for dismissal he sought to advance (para 3).
  Khalsa's appeal did not make him a party to the underlying case, and the existence of any related appeal by another party did not confer on him the status of a party to the case. Consequently, his arguments regarding standing on appeal were deemed not viable (para 4).
  The Court noted that the lack of response to Khalsa's motion to intervene did not demonstrate that the district court erred in denying the motion. The applicable rules allowed the court to rule with or without a hearing regardless of whether a response was filed (para 5).
  Khalsa's repetition of arguments regarding U.S. Bank's lack of standing and his failure to demonstrate error in fact or law or explain how he was entitled to review of the merits of the case below led the Court to conclude that he had not demonstrated standing to challenge the merits of the foreclosure judgment (para 6).