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, Cynthia Montano, initiated a lawsuit against Moving Express & Storage, Inc., Countrywide Moving Plus, LLC, and Jamal Mohammed. The core of the dispute revolves around the Defendant's claim that they were not properly served with process in accordance with Rule 1-004(G) NMRA, challenging the personal jurisdiction of the district court over them and deeming the judgment void as a result.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant (Moving Express & Storage, Inc.): Argued that they were not properly served with process as required by Rule 1-004(G) NMRA, claiming no affirmative steps were shown to comply with the requirements to serve a corporation, the employee served was not "in charge" of the office as required, and that facsimile, mail, and telephone notice cannot be considered service under Rule 1-004(G) (paras 3, 9-10).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (Cynthia Montano): Contended that the Defendant was properly served. The Plaintiff argued that the employee served was the only person working at the Defendant’s office, supporting that the employee was in charge of the office, and that the employee served was a managing or general agent of Defendant because the employee was involved in settlement negotiations with Plaintiff (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant was properly served with process in accordance with Rule 1-004(G) NMRA.
• Whether the district court had personal jurisdiction over the Defendant.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion to set aside the judgment.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals held that the Defendant was properly served and affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to set aside the judgment (para 1).

Reasons

• Per MEDINA, J., with DUFFY, J., and BUSTAMANTE, J., retired, sitting by designation, concurring:
  The Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to set aside the judgment because the Defendant was properly served. The Court disagreed with the Defendant's argument that they were not properly served under Rule 1-004(G), noting that the Plaintiff’s process server attempted to serve an officer, a managing or a general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment of the business at Defendant’s office. When such a person was unavailable, service was made to an employee apparently in charge of Defendant’s office as permitted by Rule 1-004(G)(2) (paras 2-4, 8).
  The Court also noted the Defendant's failure to provide a sufficient record for review, including the absence of a transcript or audio recording of the hearing on its motion, which hindered the Court's ability to review the basis for the district court’s decision. As a result, the appellate court presumed the correctness and regularity of the district court’s decision (paras 5, 7).
  The Court declined to consider the Defendant's argument regarding the improper service of defendants Countrywide Moving Plus, LLC and Jamal Mohammed, as they were not parties to the appeal (para 11).