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

• HDQ, LLC initiated a legal action seeking prejudgment interest, which led to an appeal. During the appeal process, Quiet Title Company, LLC filed for bankruptcy, resulting in an automatic stay of the appeal. Subsequently, the bankruptcy case was dismissed, and the stay on the appeal was lifted. Cornelius Dooley and Susan Hoffman-Dooley were allowed to substitute for Plaintiff HDQ, LLC in the action.

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County, Sarah M. Singleton, District Judge: Denied Plaintiff HDQ, LLC's motion for prejudgment interest.
• Court of Appeals of New Mexico, December 9, 2011: Stayed the appeal pending bankruptcy proceedings, later lifted the stay, and allowed substitution of plaintiffs.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellants: Sought to substitute Cornelius Dooley and Susan Hoffman-Dooley for Plaintiff HDQ, LLC in the appeal and initially pursued prejudgment interest before abandoning the appeal.
• Defendants-Appellees: Filed a memorandum in support of the calendar notice, indicating agreement with the proposed summary affirmance of the district court's order.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Court of Appeals should lift the stay of the appeal pending bankruptcy proceedings.
• Whether Cornelius Dooley and Susan Hoffman-Dooley should be allowed to substitute for Plaintiff HDQ, LLC in the action.
• Whether the district court's order denying Plaintiff and the substituted Plaintiffs prejudgment interest should be affirmed.

Disposition

• The stay of the appeal pending bankruptcy was lifted.
• Cornelius Dooley and Susan Hoffman-Dooley were allowed to substitute for Plaintiff HDQ, LLC.
• The district court's order denying Plaintiff and the substituted Plaintiffs prejudgment interest was affirmed.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (Michael D. Bustamante, J., and Linda M. Vanzi, J., concurring): The Court decided to lift the stay of the appeal following the dismissal of the bankruptcy case and agreed with the parties that the substitution of plaintiffs was appropriate. The Court affirmed the district court's order denying prejudgment interest based on the reasons set forth in the Court's March 2, 2011, calendar notice, and noted the substituted Plaintiffs' abandonment of the appeal and lack of opposition to the calendar notice analysis.