AI Generated Opinion Summaries

Decision Information

Decision Content

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

  • Sonya Castillo, acting as the personal representative over the estate of Alfredo Castillo, individually, and as next of friend of the minor children, filed a lawsuit against Nor-Lea General Hospital, Nor-Lea General Hospital Clinic, and Juan Soto Lopez, MD. The specifics of the events leading to the lawsuit are not detailed in the provided text.

Procedural History

  • District Court of Lea County, William G. Shoobridge, District Judge: Judgment of dismissal with prejudice was issued, and a subsequent order denied the motion for relief from judgment.

Parties' Submissions

  • Plaintiff-Appellant: Sonya Castillo appealed from the district court's judgment of dismissal with prejudice and the order denying her motion for relief from judgment. The specific arguments made by the appellant are not detailed in the provided text.
  • Defendants-Appellees: Nor-Lea General Hospital, Nor-Lea General Hospital Clinic, and Juan Soto Lopez, MD. The specific arguments made by the appellees are not detailed in the provided text.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the Plaintiff’s appeal from the judgment of dismissal with prejudice was timely filed.
  • Whether the district court’s denial of the motion for relief from judgment was proper.

Disposition

  • The Court of Appeals dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal from the judgment of dismissal with prejudice for untimely filing of her notice of appeal.
  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of her motion for relief from judgment.

Reasons

  • Per Roderick T. Kennedy, J. (Timothy L. Garcia, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring): The Court of Appeals decided to dismiss the Plaintiff's appeal due to the untimely filing of her notice of appeal. Additionally, the Court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion for relief from judgment. The decision was based on the procedural posture of the case, specifically the lack of opposition to the proposed summary disposition by the Plaintiff, and the expiration of the time allowed for filing such opposition.
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.