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, a self-represented litigant, sought to appeal the district court's affirmation of the metropolitan court's order of dismissal related to a dispute involving two documents—a repair order and NADA car values—that were not admitted under exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Carl J. Butkus, District Judge: Affirmed the metropolitan court’s order of dismissal.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Contended that the trial court erred by refusing to admit two documents under exceptions to the hearsay rule and requested more money from the matter, arguing that the law was not applied correctly.
• Defendant-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the trial court erred by refusing to admit two documents under exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, maintaining the district court's affirmation of the metropolitan court's order of dismissal.

Reasons

• Per VANZI, J. (VARGAS, J., and ATTREP, J., concurring): The Court considered the Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition but found it unpersuasive, as it did not assert any new facts, law, or argument beyond a request for more money and a contention that the law was not applied correctly. The Court's decision to affirm was based on the Plaintiff's failure to specifically point out errors of law and fact, as required when responding to a summary calendar notice. The Court adopted the district court’s recitation of the facts, applicable law, reasoning, and result, affirming the dismissal order for the reasons set forth in their notice (paras 1-4).