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 denial of a motion for relief from a judgment that had previously dismissed his claims. The Plaintiff's motion was based on Rule 1-060(B) NMRA, seeking to overturn or reconsider the judgment against him.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that ordinances, statutes, and other authorities he cited should be considered as newly discovered evidence. He also suggested inadvertence and fraud as grounds for relief and contended that the district court misunderstood his arguments, warranting reconsideration. Additionally, the Plaintiff sought to supplement the record with transcripts from the underlying proceedings (paras 3-6).
• Defendants: The specific arguments made by the Defendants are not detailed in the provided text, thus.

Legal Issues

• Whether the materials cited by the Plaintiff could be considered as newly discovered evidence under Rule 1-060(B)(2).
• Whether the Plaintiff's claims of inadvertence and fraud provided sufficient grounds for relief under Rule 1-060(B).
• Whether the district court's alleged misapprehension of the Plaintiff's arguments justified reconsideration under Rule 1-060(B).
• Whether the Plaintiff should be allowed to supplement the record with transcripts from the underlying proceedings to support his appeal.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the Plaintiff's Rule 1-060(B) NMRA motion for relief from the previously entered judgment dismissing his claims (para 7).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges M. Monica Zamora, Jonathan B. Sutin, and Julie J. Vargas, provided several reasons for their decision:
  The Court was not persuaded that the materials cited by the Plaintiff constituted newly discovered evidence, as these materials were previously available and could have been discovered earlier with due diligence (para 3).
  The Plaintiff's suggestions of inadvertence and fraud were not elaborated upon sufficiently to persuade the Court (para 4).
  The Court found that the Plaintiff's arguments for reconsideration were essentially a reiteration of previously rejected arguments, and thus, were not grounds for relief under Rule 1-060(B) (para 5).
  The Court determined that the record before them supplied all necessary information, and the transcripts the Plaintiff wished to add would not impact their analysis. Therefore, the request to supplement the record was rejected (para 6).