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 an appeal from a district court's order denying the Defendants' motion to declare void an order granting summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff. The Defendants argued that the summary judgment was improper due to insufficient service of notice, thereby violating their due process rights.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendants: Argued that the summary judgment was not proper because they were not properly served with the notice of hearing, which violated their due process rights, resulting in a void judgment (paras 1-2).
• Plaintiff: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the insufficiency in the notice of hearing on the motion for summary judgment violated Defendants' due process rights.
• Whether Defendants were held to the same standards of conduct and compliance with court rules, procedures, and orders as are members of the bar, despite being self-represented for portions of the proceedings.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying Defendants' motion to declare void the order granting summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff (para 4).

Reasons

• Per JAMES J. WECHSLER, J. (CYNTHIA A. FRY, J., RODERICK T. KENNEDY, J., concurring):
  The Court found that the due process considerations of Rule 1-004 NMRA (service of process) do not appear to apply to Rule 1-005 (service of pleadings) in addressing motions to dismiss for a void judgment. It was noted that any insufficiency in the notice of hearing on the motion for summary judgment did not violate Defendants' due process rights because the court may, but is not required to, hold an oral hearing for a motion for summary judgment. The Defendants' argument that they were not properly served with the notice of hearing and that their due process rights were violated was considered and found unpersuasive. The Court also highlighted that Defendants failed to cite any New Mexico cases that apply due process requirements of Rule 1-004 to service of subsequent pleadings under Rule 1-005. Furthermore, even if Rule 1-004 due process considerations applied to service of pleadings, Defendants did not show how notice of the summary judgment hearing was improper under Rule 1-005, as the notice was served on Defendant Hone’s last known address provided to the district court, and she failed to appropriately notify the district court of her change of address in compliance with Local Rule LR8-301 NMRA. The Court reiterated that pro se litigants are held to the same standard of conduct and compliance with court rules, procedures, and orders as are members of the bar, dismissing the argument that Defendant Hone should be afforded special attention and consideration as a self-represented litigant during portions of these proceedings (paras 1-3).