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 Petitioner's putative claim against the Estate of Gilles L. Delisle. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Respondent, dismissing the Petitioner's claim (para 1).

Procedural History

• District Court of Doña Ana County: Final order granting summary judgment in favor of Respondent and dismissing Petitioner’s claim (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued against the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the Respondent, but failed to provide adequate supporting authority for his arguments (para 3).
• Respondent-Appellee: Filed a combined memorandum in support of the court's proposed summary disposition and a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that Petitioner’s docketing statement was filed out of time. The motion to dismiss was denied (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Respondent, thereby dismissing the Petitioner's claim against the Estate of Gilles L. Delisle (N/A).
• Whether the Petitioner's docketing statement was filed out of time and if this constitutes grounds for dismissing the appeal (para 1).

Disposition

• The motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that Petitioner’s docketing statement was filed out of time is denied (para 1).
• Petitioner’s motion for extension of time is denied due to failure to comply with procedural requirements (para 2).
• The appeal is summarily affirmed in favor of the Respondent, upholding the district court's decision to grant summary judgment and dismiss the Petitioner's claim (para 3).

Reasons

• VANZI, Judge (HANISEE, Chief Judge, and DUFFY, Judge, concurring): The decision to deny the motion to dismiss the appeal was based on the timely filing of the Respondent's combined memorandum, despite the Petitioner's procedural misstep with the docketing statement (para 1). The denial of the Petitioner's motion for extension of time was due to the failure to ascertain opposition to the motion as required by Rule 12-309(C) NMRA (para 2). The affirmation of the district court's decision was based on the Petitioner's failure to provide persuasive arguments or adequately point out errors in fact or law in his memorandum in opposition, thus not meeting the burden of opposing the proposed disposition (para 3).