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

• Claimants/Appellants sought to have their pre-1906 claims to water, storage, and diversion rights in the Lower Rio Grande adjudicated as a new stream system issue within the Lower Rio Grande Adjudication process. The district court denied their motion, leading to this appeal.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants: Argued that the district court's order denying their motion to designate a stream system issue was a final, appealable order because it fully resolved and denied their opportunity to set a stream issue, thus affecting their rights significantly (para 2).
• Appellees (United States, Elephant Butte Irrigation District, and State of New Mexico): Supported the Court of Appeals' notice of proposed disposition to dismiss the appeal, agreeing that the order from the district court was not a final, appealable order (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's order denying Appellants' motion to designate a stream system issue was a final, appealable order.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order (para 8).

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge, with MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, and CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge concurring, reasoned that the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction is derived from final, appealable orders. The district court's order did not resolve all issues between the parties as it did not determine the rights of the parties on the merits, leaving those for future determination. The practical effect of the district court's denial was that Appellants would have to pursue their claims through standard sub-file proceedings rather than an expedited stream system issue. The court found no authority to support the argument that the passage of time or irreparable harm could convert a non-final order into a final one. Thus, the court concluded it did not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellants' motion or their claims due to the lack of a final, appealable order (paras 2-7).