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 a dispute between the Plaintiff, the current owner of a property, and the Defendant, who occupied the property. The Plaintiff accused the Defendant of trying to unlawfully take ownership of the property, vandalizing it, failing to pay rent during his occupancy, and refusing to vacate the premises. The Defendant, on the other hand, claimed that the original owner, Mr. Jones, had conveyed the property to him, making him the rightful owner.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the Defendant wrongfully attempted to take ownership of the property, vandalized it, did not pay rent while occupying it, and refused to vacate the premises. The Plaintiff sought rent for the time the Defendant occupied the property and requested that the Defendant vacate the premises.
• Defendant: Contended that the original owner, Mr. Jones, conveyed the property to him, making him the rightful owner. The Defendant also filed a motion for a stay pending the appeal's outcome and argued that the district court violated his double jeopardy rights by allowing the Plaintiff to refile the case after it was dismissed.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's motion for a stay pending the appeal's outcome should be granted.
• Whether the district court violated the Defendant's double jeopardy rights by allowing the Plaintiff to refile the case after it was dismissed.
• Whether the district court's July 9, 2012, order was erroneous.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals denied the Defendant's motion for a stay and affirmed the district court's July 9, 2012, order.

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with Celia Foy Castillo, Chief Judge, and Timothy L. Garcia, Judge concurring:
  The Court found that the Defendant did not meet the requirements for a motion for a stay pending appeal, as he failed to provide all necessary documentation and information, and did not file the required supersedeas bond within sixty days from the entry of the district court's judgment against him. The Court also held that the doctrine of double jeopardy does not apply in this civil case and that the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata do not bar the second complaint, trial, or the district court's final order because the case was not tried on the merits or ruled upon prior to its dismissal without prejudice. The Court affirmed the district court's July 9, 2012, order, finding substantial evidence supported the district court's finding that the Plaintiff is the rightful owner of the property and that this finding supports the district court's conclusion to order the Defendant to vacate the property and to pay back rent in the amount of $1,400. The Court emphasized that it does not reweigh evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses, deferring to the trier of fact in cases of conflicting testimony.