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, acting as the personal representative for the estate of the deceased, filed a lawsuit against Presbyterian Healthcare Services and Bernalillo County Health Care Corporation, alleging wrongful actions. The case proceeded to a jury trial, after which the plaintiff sought a new trial and reconsideration of the court's decisions, which were denied. The plaintiff's appeal focuses on the denial of these motions.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Final judgment after a jury trial denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial and the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (paras 1-3).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the rules of procedure are ambiguous and contended that the motion for reconsideration was timely, indirectly challenging the timeliness of the appeal process (para 2).
• Defendants: Contended that the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was untimely, rendering it ineffective in tolling the time to appeal the judgment and the order denying the motion for a new trial. They argued that only the order denying the motion for reconsideration was timely appealed (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was timely and, therefore, whether the appeal of the final judgment and the order denying the motion for new trial was timely (para 2).
• Assuming the denial of the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is separately reviewable, whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion (para 8).

Disposition

• The appeal from the final judgment and the order denying the motion for a new trial was declined due to untimeliness (para 7).
• The order denying the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was affirmed, assuming it is separately reviewable from the underlying judgment (para 12).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Jennifer L. Attrep with Judges Shammara H. Henderson and Gerald E. Baca concurring, found the plaintiff's appeal of the final judgment and the order denying the motion for a new trial to be untimely. The Court agreed with the defendants that the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration did not toll the time to appeal because it was filed more than thirty days after the entry of the underlying judgment, making it untimely and an impermissible successive attack on the judgment (paras 2-7). The Court also noted that the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration merely restated arguments previously made and rejected, and included arguments that could have been, but were not, raised at trial. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration (paras 8-11).