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

• Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant John Bassett, in his individual capacity and as mayor of the Town of Edgewood, for violations of Edgewood’s nepotism ordinance and fraud. Plaintiffs served Bassett with the original complaint, but did not serve him with the first amended complaint, which added a qui tam claim under the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (FATA). Despite not being served with the first amended complaint, default judgment and partial summary judgment were entered against Bassett (paras 2-7).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in granting default judgment and enforcing partial summary judgment against him because he was not served with the first amended complaint as required under Rule 1-005(A) NMRA and FATA’s statutory service requirements, thus the court did not have personal jurisdiction over him (para 1).
• Plaintiffs-Appellees: Contended that they were not required to serve the first amended complaint on Bassett because he had already been served with the original complaint and had actual and constructive notice of the first amended complaint (para 11).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting default judgment and partial summary judgment against Bassett without him being served with the first amended complaint, as required under Rule 1-005(A) NMRA and FATA’s statutory service requirements (paras 1, 11).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s denial of Bassett’s motion to set aside the default and partial summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings (para 22).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Michael D. Bustamante, found that Plaintiffs failed to serve the first amended complaint on Bassett as required by Rule 1-005(A) and Section 44-9-5(B) of FATA. This failure meant the district court did not have personal jurisdiction over Bassett, rendering the default judgment and partial summary judgment against him improper. The court emphasized that proper service of process is essential for a court to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant and render a binding judgment. The court also noted that actual knowledge of a lawsuit does not substitute for service of process. The decision underscored the preference for resolving cases on their merits rather than through default judgments and highlighted the absence of consideration of potential prejudice to Plaintiffs from setting aside the default judgment (paras 9-21).