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 after the district court entered a summary judgment in favor of the Defendant. The Plaintiff's appeal challenges the propriety of this summary judgment. The appeal also mentions an alleged improper communication involving opposing counsel and the attorney previously retained by the Plaintiff (para 3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Lea County: Summary judgment entered in favor of Defendant.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Contends that there was improper communication between opposing counsel, the attorney previously retained by her, and/or herself. Argues against the propriety of the summary judgment entered in favor of the Defendant (para 3).
• Defendant-Appellee: Submitted a well-supported motion for summary judgment, which the Plaintiff failed to refute in a timely and intelligible manner (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant.
• Whether alleged improper communication between opposing counsel, the attorney previously retained by the Plaintiff, and/or the Plaintiff herself affects the propriety of the summary judgment.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment entered in favor of the Defendant (para 4).

Reasons

• Per VARGAS, J., with MEDINA, J., and ZAMORA, J., concurring:
  The Court noted the Plaintiff's failure to specify issues in her docketing statement and memorandum in opposition. Despite this, the Court found no error in the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Defendant, citing the Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment (para 2).
  Regarding the Plaintiff's contention of improper communication, the Court found the argument incomprehensible and unsupported by any authoritative citation, thus declining to consider it further (para 3).
  The decision to affirm was based on the reasons stated in the notice of proposed summary disposition and the analysis provided in the memorandum opinion (para 4).