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 an appeal from the district court's order granting a motion to enforce a settlement agreement. The appellants, who are also the defendants in the case, did not file a memorandum in opposition to the proposed affirmance of the district court's order. The appellees, who are the plaintiffs, filed a memorandum supporting the proposed affirmance, although it was untimely.

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County, Raymond Z. Ortiz, District Judge: Order granting motion to enforce settlement agreement.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants (Defendants): [Not applicable or not found]
• Appellees (Plaintiffs): Filed an untimely memorandum supporting the proposed affirmance of the district court's order.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's order granting the motion to enforce the settlement agreement should be affirmed.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting the motion to enforce the settlement agreement.

Reasons

• RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge, with MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge, and LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring, decided to affirm the district court's order. The decision was based on the reasons set forth in the notice of proposed affirmance. The appellants' failure to file a memorandum in opposition to the calendar notice was recognized as an acceptance of the proposed disposition, following the precedent set in Frick v. Veazey.