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-Appellant filed a complaint against two assistant City attorneys and a metropolitan court judge, alleging various grievances. The specifics of these grievances are not detailed in the decision. The Appellant sought a default judgment against the Appellee for $300 million but was unsuccessful in the lower court.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Shannon C. Bacon, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint and sought to overturn this decision. The Appellant attached documents to his memorandum in opposition, which were not considered because they were not part of the district court record.
• Defendants-Appellees: The specific arguments of the Appellees are not detailed in the decision. However, it is implied that they opposed the Appellant's claims and motions for default judgment.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in dismissing the Plaintiff-Appellant's complaint against two assistant City attorneys and a metropolitan court judge.
• Whether the Appellant's attachment of documents not included in the district court record could be considered on appeal.
• Whether the Appellant properly preserved issues for appeal by invoking a ruling of the trial court on the same grounds argued in the appellate court.
• Whether a one-day time difference in response to the complaint could be grounds for a default judgment.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court to dismiss the Plaintiff-Appellant's complaint.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (Linda M. Vanzi, J., and Timothy L. Garcia, J., concurring): The Court found the Appellant's arguments unpersuasive and decided to affirm the district court's dismissal of the complaint. The Court noted that the documents the Appellant attached to his memorandum in opposition were not part of the district court record and therefore could not be considered on appeal. The Appellant failed to show how the issues raised on appeal were preserved at the trial level, which is a prerequisite for appellate review. Additionally, the Court found that even if the response from Appellee Engel was considered untimely, a one-day delay would not justify a default judgment, especially for a claim of $300 million. The Court also noted that default judgments are generally disfavored and should be avoided if there is any doubt. Lastly, the Court declined to address claims related to the motion for default judgment, reimbursement for vehicle damage, case history, or allegedly altered documents due to lack of proper preservation and support in the district court record.