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 filed a lawsuit against Ford Motor Credit Company LLC and Lawrence P. Zamzok, asserting claims for damages based on negligence, malicious abuse of process, violation of the Unfair Practices Act, and a claim for punitive damages. The claims were specifically tied to an alleged violation of NMSA 1978, § 55-9-620(g) (2001), concerning false and misleading statements and unconscionable trade practices in the collection of delinquent accounts (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the entire cause of action was based on Section 55-9-620(g), implicating false and misleading statements and unconscionable trade practices in the collection of delinquent accounts (para 4).
• Defendants: Supported the dismissal of the appeal, agreeing with the court's initial disposition that there was a lack of a final order (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's order dismissing some of the Plaintiff's claims constitutes a final, appealable order (para 2).

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed for lack of a final order (para 6).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Chief Judge Linda M. Vanzi authoring the memorandum opinion and Judges Michael E. Vigil and M. Monica Zamora concurring, determined that the district court's order was not final and thus not appealable at this stage. The court highlighted that a final order must resolve all issues of law and fact to the fullest extent possible, which was not achieved in this case since the order only dismissed certain claims and not the entire action. The Plaintiff's first amended complaint included claims not based on Section 55-9-620(g), indicating that further proceedings were anticipated. Additionally, the lack of certification language under Rule 1-054(B)(1)NMRA further supported the conclusion that the order was not intended to be final and appealable. The Plaintiff's request for interlocutory appeal was also noted, but the court declined to consider it as the district court had not certified the case for such review (paras 2-5).