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 plaintiffs, Emil and Sharon Mottola, engaged in litigation against the defendants, Linda and Luis Martin, doing business as Mirasol Solar Energy Systems, concerning a dispute over a costs judgment. The core of the dispute in the present appeal revolves around the plaintiffs' contention that they are entitled to relief from this judgment.

Procedural History

• Mottola v. Martin, No. A-1-CA-34915, memo op. (N.M. Ct. App. July 18, 2018) (nonprecedential): The court considered and decided against Plaintiffs on the issue of Defendants failing to submit evidence to substantiate the costs bill.
• Mottola v. Martin, No. A-1-CA-36476, memo op. (N.M. Ct. App. May 24, 2019) (nonprecedential): The court addressed issues regarding relief under Rule 1-060(B)(3) NMRA due to misrepresentations and fraud related to the costs bill and whether post-judgment statements by defense counsel constituted newly discovered evidence of fraud and misrepresentations warranting relief under Rule 1-060(B)(2).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that they are entitled to relief from the costs judgment, contending that Defendants failed to submit evidence to substantiate the costs bill, and raised issues of misrepresentations and fraud related to the costs bill, including discrepancies in the number of individual hours claimed versus the number of total hours claimed. They also argued that post-judgment statements by defense counsel constituted newly discovered evidence of fraud and misrepresentations warranting relief. Additionally, they contended that the district court erred in refusing to dismiss the costs bill based on a violation of the time limits set out in Rule 1-085 NMRA.
• Defendants: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief from the costs judgment based on the defendants' alleged failure to submit evidence to substantiate the costs bill.
• Whether relief was warranted under Rule 1-060(B)(3) NMRA due to misrepresentations and fraud related to the costs bill, including discrepancies in the number of individual hours claimed versus the number of total hours claimed.
• Whether post-judgment statements made by defense counsel constituted newly discovered evidence of fraud and misrepresentations warranting relief under Rule 1-060(B)(2).
• Whether the district court erred in refusing to dismiss the costs bill based on a violation of the time limits set out in Rule 1-085 NMRA.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court, rejecting the plaintiffs' arguments for relief from the costs judgment.

Reasons

• Per Kristina Bogardus, J. (J. Miles Hanisee, Chief Judge, and Zachary A. Ives, Judge, concurring): The court applied the law of the case doctrine, noting that the issues raised by the plaintiffs had been considered and decided in previous appeals, thus binding on subsequent courts during the course of the litigation (paras 2-3). The court found the plaintiffs' arguments regarding the defendants' failure to submit evidence to substantiate the costs bill and the allegations of misrepresentations and fraud related to the costs bill to have been addressed in prior appeals and therefore did not address them further (para 3). Regarding the plaintiffs' contention that the district court erred in refusing to dismiss the costs bill based on a violation of the time limits set out in Rule 1-085 NMRA, the court found no authority supporting the plaintiffs' position that a party waives judgment in their favor for failing to comply with these time limits and rejected this argument (paras 5-6). The court also noted that on remand, the district court had recognized its disallowance of certain costs and entered an order awarding costs in a manner consistent with the court's opinion, thus rejecting the plaintiffs' assertion of error on this point (para 7).