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 case involves the petitioner's appeal against the district court's refusal to enter supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law following a motion by the petitioner. The underlying issues appear to relate to a domestic violence proceeding, with references to oral findings made by a domestic violence commissioner and the petitioner's desire for these findings to be formally recorded.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the district court violated fundamental rights, due process, and abused its discretion by refusing to enter supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law. Additionally, contended that the district court's denial "with prejudice" could have res judicata effects in future proceedings and argued for the necessity of having the domestic violence commissioner's oral findings included in the written record.
• Respondent-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court had jurisdiction to enter supplemental findings and conclusions based on the record.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the petitioner's motion "with prejudice."
• Whether the district court should have made the oral findings of the domestic violence commissioner a part of the written record.
• Whether the district court exhibited bias by taking actions perceived to equalize the parties' positions.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to refuse the entry of supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Timothy L. Garcia authoring the opinion and concurrence from Chief Judge Celia Foy Castillo and Judge Jonathan B. Sutin, provided several reasons for affirming the district court's decision. The court clarified that the petitioner's arguments were unclear and unsupported by relevant authorities, leading to the proposal to affirm the district court's decision. The court did not view the issue of entering supplemental findings and conclusions as a jurisdictional matter, stating that the district court had the jurisdiction but was not obligated to act in any particular way. The court also addressed the petitioner's concern about the "with prejudice" language, interpreting it as a final decision on future motions for supplemental findings based on prior hearings, without barring the petitioner from referencing the record of prior proceedings in the future. The court found no requirement for district court judges to include oral findings in the written record for judicial efficiency or due process. Attempts by the petitioner to distinguish authorities cited by the court were deemed unpersuasive, and the court dismissed the petitioner's accusation of bias, citing that adverse rulings do not establish judicial bias.