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 Defendant appealed the denial of her motion for relief of judgment, arguing that the order granting summary judgment to the Plaintiff was void due to lack of notice prior to the entry of the judgment.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Plaintiff is void for lack of notice prior to the entry of the judgment (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Plaintiff is void for lack of notice prior to the entry of the judgment.
• Whether the Defendant's due process rights were violated by the alleged deficiency in notice prior to the entry of summary judgment.

Disposition

• The appeal was summarily affirmed (para 5).

Reasons

• The panel, consisting of Judges Julie J. Vargas, Kristina Bogardus, and Jacqueline R. Medina, considered the Defendant's memorandum in opposition but remained unpersuaded that the notice of proposed disposition was erroneous. The Court found that the Defendant had indeed received notice of the judgment prior to its entry, as evidenced by an email dated December 26, 2017, with the order being entered on December 29, 2017. This notice was deemed sufficient under Section 39-1-2, distinguishing the case from Hiatt v. Keil, where a judgment was entered without any notice. Additionally, the Court concluded that the Defendant's due process rights were not violated as she failed to demonstrate any resulting prejudice from the alleged deficiency in notice (paras 2-4).