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 the Defendant, alleging breach of a construction contract and warranty agreement. The case revolves around disputes related to the construction services provided by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

Procedural History

• District Court of Doña Ana County: Judgment in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff’s claims of breach of construction contract and warranty agreement.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the construction contract was ambiguous, the Defendant breached the warranty by misrepresenting dates on the certificate of occupancy, and the jury should have disregarded statements of counsel. Additionally, the Plaintiff contended that the district court erred in not holding the Defendant in contempt, failing to try the case on claims of misappropriation of United States Treasury Dollars, deceptive and fraudulent trade practices, dangerously poor and substandard work, delay in construction project, and that the jury could have disregarded the false testimony of Defendant’s witnesses.
• Defendant-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the construction contract was ambiguous and warranted a remand for a new trial.
• Whether the Defendant breached the warranty by misrepresenting dates on the certificate of occupancy.
• Whether the jury should have disregarded statements of counsel.
• Whether the district court erred in failing to hold the Defendant in contempt.
• Whether the district court erred in not trying the case on claims of misappropriation of United States Treasury Dollars, deceptive and fraudulent trade practices, dangerously poor and substandard work, and delay in construction project.
• Whether the jury could have disregarded the false testimony of Defendant’s witnesses.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the Defendant.

Reasons

• KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge, with JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge, and ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge, concurring:
  The Court found that the Plaintiff’s newly raised issues were not adequately developed and lacked a recitation of all the facts material to a consideration of the issues presented, making it unclear if these issues were preserved by being raised before the district court. Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to amend the docketing statement due to the failure to demonstrate that the asserted issues were viable (para 3).
  The Court also addressed the Plaintiff's continuation of arguments regarding the district court's alleged errors and found that the Plaintiff did not present any new facts, authority, or argument that persuaded the Court that the proposed summary disposition was incorrect. The repetition of earlier arguments did not fulfill the requirement to specifically point out errors of law and fact (para 4).
  The decision to affirm the district court’s judgment was based on the reasons stated in the notice of proposed disposition, which the Plaintiff did not specifically refute (para 5).