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 foreclosure action by LSF9 Master Participation Trust (the Trust) against Jason B. Errett (Errett). The Trust sought to reinstate the foreclosure action against Errett, which led to the current appeal (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (the Trust): Argued for the reinstatement of the foreclosure action against Errett.
• Defendant-Appellant (Errett): Contended that the motion to reinstate the case was untimely, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant the motion (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's order granting the Trust's motion to reinstate the foreclosure action against Errett was a final order appealable by this Court.
• Whether the district court had jurisdiction to grant the Trust's allegedly untimely motion to reinstate the foreclosure action (paras 2-4).

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed for lack of a final order (para 5).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, led by Chief Judge Michael E. Vigil, with Judges Michael D. Bustamante and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, determined that the appeal was not properly before the Court due to the absence of a final order resolving all matters in the case to the fullest extent possible. Errett's argument that the district court should have denied the Trust's motion to reinstate on jurisdictional grounds was not persuasive to the Court. The Court noted that neither Errett argued nor the district court’s order included language that would allow for an interlocutory appeal or any other exception to the rule that only final orders are appealable. Consequently, the appeal was deemed premature and dismissed for arising from a non-final order (paras 2-5).