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 a petitioner-appellee and a respondent-appellant regarding a motion to change venue and the awarding of attorney fees by the district court. The respondent, acting pro se, sought to appeal the district court's decision, which denied his motion and awarded attorney fees to the petitioner. The respondent contended that the jurisdiction was proper in the tribal court of Santa Clara Pueblo, not the district court, and challenged the award of attorney fees related to the motion to change venue.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Argued that the jurisdiction for the case was proper in the tribal court of Santa Clara Pueblo rather than the district court. Contested the award of attorney fees for the petitioner to respond to the motion to change venue. Requested an immediate stay of the upcoming hearing, reversal of the order for attorney fees, remand of jurisdiction to Santa Clara Pueblo, and an order for the petitioner to pay him two fees owed ([DS 18], [DS 22]).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's order denying the motion to change venue and awarding attorney fees to the petitioner is final and appealable.
• Whether the award of attorney fees is a collateral matter that may be separately appealed.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the respondent's appeal for lack of a final, appealable order.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and Timothy L. Garcia, J., concurring): The court determined that the order from which the respondent sought to appeal was not final and appealable at the time of the appeal. The court's analysis highlighted the absence of the required certification language under Rule 1-054(B)(1) NMRA, which would render the order final and immediately appealable. The court also noted that an order for attorney fees must be collateral to a final judgment to be separately appealable and found that there was no final order underlying the award of attorney fees in this case. The respondent's failure to address the court's finality analysis and merely asserting without argument or authority that the district court’s order regarding attorney fees is a final decision was insufficient to alter the court's conclusion. Based on these reasons, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order.