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 appealed from two orders: one referring the case to a settlement conference and the other dismissing his claims against the Defendant. The appeal concerns the dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant, Malcolm Manning, on grounds that may include insufficient service of process or pursuant to Rule 1-007.1 NMRA.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: The Plaintiff did not file a responsive memorandum to the court's notice of proposed summary disposition.
• Defendant: Argued for the limitation or overturning of the precedent set by Ortiz v. Shaw, contending it unfairly forces a party to choose between preserving the right to contest the sufficiency of service of process and exercising the right of peremptory excusal.

Legal Issues

• Whether the first order referring the case to a settlement conference is properly before the court.
• Whether the order of dismissal against the Defendant was improvidently entered due to either insufficient service of process or under Rule 1-007.1 NMRA.

Disposition

• The court declined to consider the matter of the order referring the case to a settlement conference further.
• The order of dismissal against the Defendant was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judge Timothy L. Garcia with Judges Roderick T. Kennedy and Linda M. Vanzi concurring, provided the following reasons:
  The Plaintiff's failure to file a responsive memorandum led the Court to adhere to its initial evaluation regarding the order referring the case to a settlement conference, choosing not to consider it further.
  The Court found the Defendant's argument to limit or overturn Ortiz v. Shaw unconvincing, as it did not demonstrate that requiring a litigant to choose between preserving the right to contest the sufficiency of service of process and exercising the right of peremptory excusal was improper. The Court distinguished between constitutional rights in criminal cases and statutory rights in civil cases, such as the right to peremptory excusal.
  Regarding Rule 1-007.1 NMRA, the Court noted that the district court did not undertake the requisite analysis before granting a dispositive motion on this basis, as required by precedent established in Lujan v. City of Albuquerque. The Court found the Defendant's attempt to distinguish Lujan on its facts unpersuasive.
  Consequently, the Court reversed the order of dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, adhering to the reasons stated in their notice of proposed summary disposition.