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 to enforce their right to access the membership list of the Defendant Neighborhood Association and sought a writ of mandamus and damages. The district court ordered the Defendants to deliver the membership list to the Plaintiff and later denied the Plaintiff's claims for compensatory and punitive damages.

Procedural History

• August 7, 2007: Plaintiff filed a complaint to enforce rights to the membership list and for damages (N/A).
• December 13, 2007: District court ordered Defendants to deliver the membership list to Plaintiff (N/A).
• March 3, 2011: District court denied Plaintiff's claims for compensatory and punitive damages (N/A).
• March 17, 2011: Plaintiff filed a timely post-judgment motion to alter or amend the March 3, 2011 judgment (N/A).
• October 20, 2011: District court filed an order denying Plaintiff's motion (N/A).
• November 21, 2011: Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeals (N/A).
• November 29, 2011: Notice of appeal filed in the district court clerk’s office.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the notice of appeal was timely filed and that issues with electronic filing led to it being noted as filed on a later date. The Plaintiff sought to show that the notice of appeal's filing should relate back to the date it was rejected by the computer service (N/A).
• Defendants: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the notice of appeal was timely filed in accordance with Rule 12-201(A)(2) NMRA.
• Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over the appeal.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal due to lack of jurisdiction, as the notice of appeal was not timely filed with the district court clerk.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Chief Judge Roderick T. Kennedy with Judges James J. Wechsler and Linda M. Vanzi concurring, determined that the notice of appeal, although filed timely in the Court of Appeals, was filed in the wrong place and the subsequent filing in the district court clerk’s office was untimely. The Court reviewed the rules de novo and emphasized that the requirements of time and place for filing a notice of appeal are mandatory preconditions for the Court’s jurisdiction. The Court found no unusual circumstances warranting an exception to overlook the procedural defect. The Plaintiff's motion for a stay of appeal deadlines due to illness was rendered moot by the dismissal of the appeal.