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 Plaintiff, Brian Urlacher Cross Country Auto Sales, L.L.C., appealing a district court's order that granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, including John Chiado, John T. Reilly, and Bedo, LLC. The core of the dispute appears to revolve around the admissibility of certain evidence that was obtained in a manner allegedly violating the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Lea County, Jane Shuler Gray, District Judge, December 18, 2013: The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the district court erred in refusing to consider evidence obtained by two men acting as agents for Plaintiff’s attorney, claiming no violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct occurred because the Defendants elected to speak with the agents.
• Defendants: Supported the district court's decision to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct and argued in favor of the summary judgment granted by the district court.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in refusing to consider evidence obtained in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
• Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment by concluding there was no evidence raising an issue of material fact as to Defendants’ liability.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Judge (Roderick T. Kennedy, Chief Judge, and Michael D. Bustamante, Judge, concurring):
  The Court of Appeals found the Plaintiff's arguments unpersuasive and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider evidence obtained in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, citing that an attorney is responsible for the conduct of non-attorney employees and independent contractors if the attorney orders, ratifies the conduct, or knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action (para 2).
  Regarding the summary judgment, the Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that, absent the evidence obtained in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, there was no evidence of any conduct for which Defendants could be held personally liable. The court also noted that the only remaining statement that could have supported Plaintiff’s claim was properly excluded as it was inadmissible hearsay or obtained in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct (paras 3-4).