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 case involves Behles Law Firm, P.C. (Behles) appealing a district court order that approved the fees of a special master. The appeal stems from the district court's decision to appoint a special master due to the voluminous filings and continuous need for rulings on every discovery request in the seventeen months the case was pending. Behles contested the appointment of the special master, arguing that the case, intended for a jury trial, did not present issues complicated enough to warrant such an appointment. Additionally, Behles raised concerns about the judge's alleged conflict of interest in appointing her former associate as the special master without disclosing their past relationship.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (Behles Law Firm, P.C.): Argued that the appointment of a special master was not warranted by the complexity of the case and that the judge had a conflict of interest in appointing a former associate as the special master without disclosing their past relationship. Behles also contended that the special master's fees were unjustified as the special master held no hearings or meetings and took no active part in the action.
• Defendants-Appellees (Curtis Hanlen and Karen Hanlen): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the appointment of a special master under Rule 1-053(B) NMRA was warranted by exceptional conditions in the case.
• Whether the district court judge's appointment of a former associate as special master, without disclosing their past relationship, constituted a conflict of interest or created an appearance of impropriety.
• Whether the district court erred in refusing to review the fees charged by the special master or determine if any of the charges were justified.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order approving the special master's fees.

Reasons

• RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge (MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge concurring):
  The Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in appointing a special master due to the complicated issues arising from voluminous filings and continuous need for rulings on discovery requests (para 2).
  The Court was not persuaded by Behles' arguments regarding the judge's alleged conflict of interest in appointing her former associate as special master. It concluded that the appointment did not impair the judge's ability to decide the case impartially, especially since the settlement was mediated by a different judge (para 3).
  Regarding the special master's fees, the Court noted that the special master acted within the bounds of his power as directed by the district court and that the judge had reviewed and deemed the bill reasonable, even deducting almost half of the paralegal fees charged. Behles' challenge to the special master's role and fees was found to be without merit (para 4).
  The Court held that there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's handling of the special master's appointment and the assessment of his fees, affirming the district court's order (para 5).