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

• Nationstar Mortgage, LLC initiated a legal action against Joel Hickerson, among others, which led to Hickerson filing a motion to dismiss. The district court granted Hickerson's motion, prompting Nationstar to file a motion for reconsideration, which was subsequently denied.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted Defendant Joel Hickerson's motion to dismiss and denied Plaintiff Nationstar Mortgage, LLC's motion for reconsideration.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff (Nationstar Mortgage, LLC): Argued against the district court's order granting the motion to dismiss and the subsequent denial of their motion for reconsideration.
• Defendant (Joel S. Hickerson): In his memorandum in opposition, argued that the district court's decision should be affirmed on the basis that Plaintiff did not have standing at the beginning of the case due to the statute of limitations having run.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting Defendant Hickerson's motion to dismiss.
• Whether the statute of limitations argument, not preserved at the district court level, affects the standing of the Plaintiff at the beginning of the case.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order granting Hickerson’s motion to dismiss and the subsequent order denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, and remanded for further consideration.

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, with concurrence from M. Monica Zamora and Megan P. Duffy, the Court of Appeals found that the district court erred in its decision to grant Hickerson's motion to dismiss and deny Nationstar's motion for reconsideration. The appellate court was unpersuaded by Hickerson's memorandum in opposition, particularly his argument regarding the statute of limitations, which was not preserved at the district court level (paras 2-3). The court also noted that, based on the facts known, the statute of limitations did not warrant dismissal of the action (para 3). The appellate court emphasized that the burden was on Hickerson to clearly point out errors in fact or law in his opposition to the proposed disposition, which he failed to do (para 4).