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 appealed from the district court's order which denied his third motion to reinstate his complaint after it was dismissed for lack of prosecution.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the district court erred by denying his third motion for reinstatement under Rule 1-041(E)(2) NMRA and contended that Defendants should not have been allowed to defend against reinstatement without having filed an answer (para 2).
• Defendants: Supported the district court's decision to deny the Plaintiff's third motion for reinstatement and filed a memorandum in support of the court's proposed summary affirmation of the decision (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Plaintiff's third motion for reinstatement under Rule 1-041(E)(2) NMRA.
• Whether Defendants were allowed to defend against reinstatement without having filed an answer.

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, and the district court's order denying the Plaintiff's third motion to reinstate his complaint was upheld (para 3).

Reasons

• Per Hanisee, C.J., with Ives, J., and Yohalem, J., concurring: The Court found that the Plaintiff did not persuade them that the district court abused its discretion or otherwise committed reversible error in denying his third motion for reinstatement. The Court considered the memoranda filed by both parties and affirmed the decision for the reasons stated in their notice of proposed disposition, citing the burden on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law (paras 1-2).