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

• A wedding reception was held at the Tumbleweed Steakhouse where a guest, later involved in a rollover accident resulting in the plaintiff's decedent's death, was allegedly served alcohol despite being visibly intoxicated. The initial complaint misidentified the operator of the Tumbleweed Steakhouse, naming Tumbleweed Steakhouse, Inc. instead of the actual operator, Fiesta Beverages, Inc. (d/b/a Tumbleweed Steakhouse). The error was recognized, and efforts were made to correct the party named in the lawsuit.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, July 1, 2008: Advised that Tumbleweed Steakhouse, Inc. should file a motion to dismiss.
• District Court of Bernalillo County, October 27, 2008: Granted summary judgment in favor of Tumbleweed Steakhouse, Inc., dismissed it from the suit, and recognized Fiesta as the proper defendant.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that the summary judgment was improper because Fiesta was not formally a party when it filed the motion for summary judgment and because they were not allowed to file a response to the motion.
• Appellee (Fiesta Beverages, Inc.): Contended that it was the proper party to the lawsuit as the operator and liquor license owner of Tumbleweed Steakhouse and had no objection to being added as a defendant. However, it objected to keeping Tumbleweed Steakhouse, Inc. as a party.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Fiesta Beverages, Inc., given the procedural circumstances and the plaintiffs' lack of response to the motion for summary judgment.
• Whether Fiesta Beverages, Inc. was correctly considered a party to the case at the time it filed the motion for summary judgment.

Disposition

• The order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Fiesta Beverages, Inc. was affirmed.

Reasons

• VIGIL, Judge (SUTIN, Judge and FRY, Judge concurring): The court found substantial evidence supporting the district court's conclusion that Fiesta was a party to the case when it filed the motion for summary judgment. The court also determined that the plaintiffs had an opportunity to respond to the motion for summary judgment, contrary to their claims. The court applied the principle of nunc pro tunc to affirm that the procedural steps taken were sufficient to consider Fiesta as the properly named defendant at the time the motion for summary judgment was filed, despite the plaintiffs' failure to formally amend the complaint or serve subsequent pleadings on Fiesta.