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 appellant, Robert Richards, who sought to amend his complaint against the appellees, Jones, Snead, Wertheim & Clifford, P.A., Samuel C. Wolf, and Leon R. Hunt, IV, after the district court orally granted a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The district court denied Richards' oral motion to amend his complaint and later entered a written order dismissing his claims with prejudice and denying his motion for leave to amend his complaint.

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County, Raymond Z. Ortiz, District Judge: Granted motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and denied Richards' oral motion to amend his complaint.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Robert Richards): Argued that he was entitled to amend his complaint as a matter of course, pursuant to Rule 1-015(A) NMRA, because the appellees had not filed a responsive pleading to his original complaint.
• Appellees (Jones Firm, Wolf, and Hunt): Contended that the district court had discretion to deny Richards' oral motion to amend his complaint because he had not filed an amended complaint or requested leave to amend before the district court's oral ruling dismissing his complaint. They also argued that the amendment would be futile.

Legal Issues

• Whether Richards was entitled to amend his complaint as a matter of course, pursuant to Rule 1-015(A) NMRA, after the district court made an oral ruling dismissing his complaint but before the entry of the final order.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Michael D. Bustamante, with Judges M. Monica Zamora and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, found the appellees' arguments unconvincing and held that Richards should have been allowed to amend his complaint as a matter of course. The court reasoned that a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading within the meaning of Rule 1-015(A) NMRA, and therefore, Richards was entitled to amend his complaint once as a matter of right before the entry of the final order dismissing his complaint. The court distinguished this case from Hamilton v. Hughes, asserting that Moffat v. Branch controlled and supported Richards' right to amend. The court concluded that the district court did not have discretion to deny Richards' motion to amend because he was entitled to amend his complaint as a matter of right (paras 1-11).