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 Moongate Water Company, Inc. (Petitioner) and John D'Antonio, New Mexico State Engineer (Respondent), concerning a dispute over the issuance of water appropriation permits as outlined in the LRG-6808 Settlement Agreement between the parties. The Petitioner sought a permanent alternative writ of mandamus to compel the Respondent to issue the permits and process them in a timely and legally compliant manner, as they believed all requirements imposed by NMSA 1978, Section 72-12-3(E) (2019) were satisfied.

Procedural History

• District Court of Doña Ana County: Denied Petitioner's request for a permanent alternative writ of mandamus and dismissed the action.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner: Argued that the Respondent's failure to file an answer contesting the factual allegations amounted to an admission of the truth of the petition, warranting the issuance of a permanent writ of mandamus. Additionally, contended that the district court erred in declining to enter a permanent writ of mandanus, citing the LRG-6808 Settlement Agreement's satisfaction of all requirements imposed by NMSA 1978, Section 72-12-3(E) (2019).
• Respondent: Supported the Court's proposed disposition to affirm the district court's decision, arguing against the Petitioner's interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and the procedural default claim.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in declining to enter a permanent writ of mandamus based on the LRG-6808 Settlement Agreement satisfying all requirements of NMSA 1978, Section 72-12-3(E) (2019).
• Whether the Respondent's failure to file an answer contesting the factual allegations in the petition amounted to an admission of the truth of those allegations, warranting the issuance of a permanent writ of mandamus.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying the Petitioner's request for a permanent alternative writ of mandamus and dismissing the action.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Jennifer L. Attrep, Kristina Bogardus, and Jacqueline R. Medina, considered the Petitioner's memorandum in opposition and the Respondent's memorandum in support. The Court found that the Petitioner's procedural default claim was not clearly raised as an issue in the docketing statement and denied the motion to amend the docketing statement as nonviable (paras 2-4). The Court also determined that the alternative writ of mandamus could not be used to settle the contractual dispute between the parties due to the writ's failure to allege the complete factual predicate for the permits identified in the LRG-6808 Settlement Agreement (paras 5-7). Furthermore, the Court was not persuaded by the Petitioner's arguments regarding the interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and the alleged procedural default, affirming the district court's decision for the reasons stated in their notice of proposed disposition and the memorandum opinion (paras 8-9).