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

• Keith and Claudia Duerinck, acting as self-represented litigants, filed a complaint against the Board of Supervisors of the Grant Soil and Water Conservation District and the Board of Directors of the Upper Gila Valley Arroyos Watershed District. The plaintiffs contended that there were errors in the judgment regarding the watershed district addition statute and the statute of limitations, specifically relating to the 1984 addition to the district which they discovered in October 2016. They argued that this discovery should not have barred their complaint filed in May 2017 (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that the district court erred in dismissing their complaint without a hearing and contended there were errors regarding the watershed district addition statute and the statute of limitations. They believed the discovery of the alleged historical injury in October 2016 allowed them to file their complaint in May 2017 (paras 1, 3-4).
• Defendants: Successfully moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ complaint in the district court, although their specific arguments are not detailed in the decision (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in dismissing the Plaintiffs' complaint without a hearing.
• Whether the district court improperly applied the statute regarding the addition of land to a watershed district.
• Whether the Plaintiffs' discovery of the alleged historical injury in October 2016 should have allowed them to file their complaint in May 2017 without being barred by the statute of limitations (paras 1-4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint (para 6).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Linda M. Vanzi, with Judges Julie J. Vargas and Jacqueline R. Medina concurring, found that the matter was appropriately heard on the briefs without a hearing. The Court noted that the Plaintiffs did not challenge any specific factual or legal finding, except for the district court’s citation to a specific statute. The Court also mentioned that the Plaintiffs failed to adequately develop their argument regarding the statute of limitations and did not demonstrate error on their part. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs did not respond to the proposed affirmance on alternative grounds such as lack of standing, waiver, and failure to exhaust administrative remedies, which the Court took as acceptance of the proposed affirmance on these grounds (paras 2-5).