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 the dismissal of her claims with prejudice. She filed a document with the Court of Appeals that was purported to be a “Verified Petition for Docketing Statement” and “Writ of Mandamus.” The claims were initially dismissed by the District Court on January 8, 2013. The Plaintiff's notice of appeal was filed one day late, on February 8, 2013, instead of the due date, February 7, 2013 (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County, January 8, 2013: Claims dismissed with prejudice.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the appeal was timely based on a misunderstanding of the applicable rule regarding the filing deadline. Also contended that errors by the district court justified the late filing of the notice of appeal (paras 3-4).
• Defendants-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff’s direct appeal should be dismissed as untimely.
• Whether the Plaintiff’s petition for writ of mandamus was properly filed with the Court of Appeals.

Disposition

• The Plaintiff’s direct appeal was dismissed as untimely.
• The Plaintiff’s petition for writ of mandamus was dismissed for being improperly filed with the Court of Appeals (para 1).

Reasons

• MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge (LINDA M. VANZI, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring): The Court found the Plaintiff's notice of appeal to be filed one day late without any exceptional circumstances to justify the delay. The Court also determined it lacked original jurisdiction to grant or deny a writ of mandamus, noting that the Plaintiff had not provided a basis for invoking the Court’s appellate jurisdiction regarding the writ of mandamus. The Plaintiff's misunderstanding of the filing deadline rule and her assertion of district court errors did not impact her ability to file a timely notice of appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as untimely, and the petition for writ of mandamus was dismissed due to the Court's lack of authority to issue such a writ in the first instance (paras 2-6).