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 Plaintiff, while incarcerated, contended that bank statements were not made available to him as they were not sent to the prison. He argued this was required by statute, impacting his ability to discover and report unauthorized transactions. The Defendant, Wells Fargo, had previously sent the statements to the Plaintiff's home address, not the prison.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the bank statements were not "made available" to him as required because they were not sent to his place of incarceration, which he contended was necessary for him to discover and report unauthorized transactions.
• Defendant: Supported the court's proposed disposition to affirm the summary judgment in their favor, contending that the Plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of limitations and that there was no requirement for the statements to be sent to the prison.

Legal Issues

• Whether the bank statements were "made available" to the Plaintiff in accordance with the statute, given they were not sent to his place of incarceration.
• Whether the Plaintiff's claim is barred by the statute of limitations contained in the New Mexico Uniform Commercial Code.
• Whether Wells Fargo committed perjury by falsely swearing information in an affidavit.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo and dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges James J. Wechsler, Roderick T. Kennedy, and Linda M. Vanzi, concluded that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding the availability of the bank statements. The Court found that the term "made available" as used in the statute does not imply a requirement to send statements to the Plaintiff's place of incarceration. The Plaintiff did not provide any authority to support his interpretation, nor did he indicate that he had informed Wells Fargo of a change in his address to the prison. Furthermore, the Court addressed the Plaintiff's other arguments to the best of their ability, given the Plaintiff's pro se status, and found no clear abuse of discretion by the district court in not holding Wells Fargo in contempt for allegedly providing false information in an affidavit. The Court's decision to affirm the summary judgment was based on the determination that the Plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of limitations and the lack of demonstrated material fact or legal basis to support the Plaintiff's claims.