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 a dispute between Gabriel Lopez, doing business as Gabriel's Independent Station, and Jaylene Quiles, with Pauline Duran (correctly Pauline Perea) also named as a respondent. The district court issued a judgment that included a mutual injunction against the parties and denied their claims for damages. Jaylene Quiles, representing herself, appealed the decision.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (Gabriel Lopez d/b/a Gabriel's Independent Station): [Not applicable or not found]
• Respondent-Appellant (Jaylene Quiles): Quiles opposed the district court's judgment, which included a mutual injunction against the parties and denied their claims for damages. In her appeal, she accused the Court and other New Mexico courts of misconduct, making false statements, and violating her constitutional rights without clearly identifying specific instances or providing a clear legal or factual basis for her claims (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's judgment, including the mutual injunction against the parties and the denial of their claims for damages, was erroneous.
• Whether the appellate court's proposed summary disposition was incorrect based on the respondent's accusations of court misconduct, false statements, and constitutional rights violations.

Disposition

• The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, ordering a mutual injunction against the parties and denying the parties' claims for damages (para 4).

Reasons

• The decision was authored by Judge Jacqueline R. Medina, with Judges Kristina Bogardus and Zachary A. Ives concurring. The Court found that the respondent, Jaylene Quiles, did not clearly address all the issues listed in her docketing statement, did not clarify matters for which the Court sought explanation, and did not specify the legal or factual basis upon which she believed the Court's proposed analysis was incorrect. Instead, her memorandum accused the Court and other New Mexico courts of misconduct and constitutional violations without clear identification or evidence. The Court held that conclusory assertions did not demonstrate error in the proposed analysis and disposition, citing precedent that the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law. The appellate court remained unpersuaded by Quiles' response and affirmed the district court's judgment for the reasons stated in their notice of proposed disposition (paras 1-3).