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

• Perry Kesler (Defendant) appealed from a district court order that granted the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Defendant's counterclaims with prejudice. The appeal was based on the district court's decision made on March 3, 2015. The Defendant also filed a motion to reconsider the district court's decision, which was denied based on the court's mistaken belief that it was divested of jurisdiction due to the appeal (para 3).

Procedural History

• District Court of San Miguel County, March 3, 2015: Granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Defendant's counterclaims with prejudice.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant: Filed a docketing statement appealing the district court's order, a memorandum in opposition, and a motion to amend his docketing statement. The Defendant also filed a notice of entry of the district court's order along with a copy of the order denying Defendant’s motion to reconsider (para 1).
• Plaintiff/Counterdefendant-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the appeal from the district court's order granting Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and dismissing Defendant's counterclaims with prejudice is premature due to the pending motion to reconsider (para 2-3).

Disposition

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

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge (James J. Wechsler, Judge, and M. Monica Zamora, Judge concurring): The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of a final order, noting that the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to reconsider was based on a mistaken belief that it was divested of jurisdiction due to the pending appeal. The Court of Appeals clarified that the district court retains jurisdiction to enter a final judgment on a motion to reconsider and that the appeal was premature because the district court had not yet ruled on the merits of the Defendant's motion. The Court of Appeals indicated that the Defendant is free to appeal once a final order on the merits is entered by the district court (paras 1-5).