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, a self-represented litigant, filed a motion to void and vacate judgment orders for want of jurisdiction and an application for attorney fees and costs against the Defendant, a New Mexico non-profit corporation. The Plaintiff argued that her failure to sign her complaint with a traditional signature, opting instead for a printed name, rendered the district court without jurisdiction.

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County: Denied Plaintiff's Rule 1-060(B)(4) NMRA motion to void and vacate judgment orders for want of jurisdiction and granted Defendant's application for attorney fees and costs.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the printed name on her complaint does not constitute her signature, thereby depriving the district court of jurisdiction. She cited non-precedential case law and federal rules to support her argument.
• Defendant: Filed a memorandum in opposition to the Plaintiff's arguments, which was considered by the Court of Appeals.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff's failure to sign her complaint with a traditional signature deprived the district court of jurisdiction.
• Whether the district court erred in awarding attorney fees and costs to the Defendant.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions, denying the Plaintiff's motion to void and vacate judgment orders and granting the Defendant's application for attorney fees and costs.

Reasons

• Judges Julie J. Vargas, Kristina Bogardus, and Jacqueline R. Medina concurred in the opinion. The Court found that the Plaintiff's argument regarding the signature requirement was without merit, citing Rule 1-011 NMRA, which allows for various forms of signatures, including computer-generated ones. The Court also noted that the purpose of the signature requirement is to deter abuses and ensure filings are made in good faith, not to confer jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court addressed the Plaintiff's argument about the lack of opportunity to be heard on the issue of fees and costs as without merit, stating that the Plaintiff had an opportunity to respond but chose not to do so effectively. The Court emphasized that the Plaintiff's conduct appeared to be an attempt at game-playing and was not in good faith, thus affirming the district court's decisions (paras 1-5).