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, acting pro se, sought to appeal a district court order that dismissed his complaint. The district court's judgment was filed on December 1, 2011. Subsequently, the Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider this order on December 7, 2011, and also filed a notice of appeal from the underlying order on the same day as the judgment was filed. There was no indication that the district court had ruled on the Plaintiff's motion to reconsider at the time of the appeal.

Procedural History

• District Court of San Juan County, December 1, 2011: The complaint filed by the Plaintiff was dismissed.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued against the district court's order dismissing his complaint and filed a motion to reconsider this order.
• Defendant-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff's appeal is premature in the absence of a district court ruling on his motion to reconsider the order dismissing his complaint.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal as premature.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Timothy L. Garcia with Judges Michael E. Vigil and Linda M. Vanzi concurring, found the Plaintiff's appeal to be premature. The Court noted that there was no record of the district court ruling on the Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the order that dismissed his complaint. According to Rule 1-059(E) NMRA and relevant case law, the district court was required to rule on the post-judgment motion, and such motions are not subject to automatic denial due to the passage of time. Consequently, without an order denying his motion, the Plaintiff's appeal was deemed premature based on principles of finality discussed in prior case law.