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 over the estate of Jose B. Maestas, deceased. The district court entered a default judgment against the Respondent, Angelica Leon, as a sanction for discovery violations. Leon, acting pro se, appealed the default judgment and the subsequent denial of her motions for reconsideration and to set aside the default judgment.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Alan M. Mallott, District Judge: Entered a default judgment against Respondent as a discovery sanction and denied her motions for reconsideration and to set aside the default judgment.

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Argued that the default judgment was improper and sought reconsideration and setting aside of the judgment. Contended that her initial motion was both a motion to reconsider and a motion to consider setting aside the judgment.
• Petitioners-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in entering a default judgment against the Respondent as a discovery sanction.
• Whether the Respondent's motions for reconsideration and to set aside the default judgment were properly denied.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of a timely filed notice of appeal.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge (Timothy L. Garcia, Judge, M. Monica Zamora, Judge concurring):
  The Court proposed treating Respondent’s initial motion as a motion for reconsideration under Rule 1-059(E) due to its timing and substance directly attacking the default judgment (paras 2-3).
  The Court found that filing a second motion for reconsideration did not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal, making the Respondent's appeal untimely (para 3).
  Despite Respondent's contention, the Court determined that even if the initial motion could be liberally construed to include grounds under Rule 1-060(B), the appeal was only timely regarding the denial of her motion to set aside the default judgment, not the judgment itself (paras 4-5).
  The Court observed that all issues raised on appeal were directed at the default judgment itself and not the denial of the motion to set aside, rendering the appeal untimely for those issues (paras 6-7).
  The Court concluded that since the appeal did not timely challenge the default judgment, it could not address the merits of that judgment as a sanction for discovery violations (para 8).