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, Ruby Bernice Carmona, filed a complaint against ABQ 24 Hour Towing, LLC, which was dismissed by the metropolitan court for lack of jurisdiction over the complaint. The dismissal was without prejudice.

Procedural History

• Metropolitan Court of Bernalillo County: The case was dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Opposed the dismissal of her case and sought reversal of the metropolitan court's jurisdictional assessment.
• Defendant-Appellee: Objected to the reversal of the dismissal on grounds that the matter between the parties has been settled and moved to dismiss the appeal.

Legal Issues

• Whether the metropolitan court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's complaint.

Disposition

• The metropolitan court’s order dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction is reversed.
• The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

Reasons

• Per Henderson, J., with Attrep, C.J., and Wray, J., concurring:
  The Court of Appeals issued a notice proposing to reverse the metropolitan court’s jurisdictional assessment and remand for further proceedings, which neither party opposed in terms of the jurisdictional analysis (para 2).
  The Court of Appeals determined that the Plaintiff’s claim constituted an action in replevin, over which magistrate courts, and by extension, metropolitan courts have jurisdiction pursuant to NMSA 1978, §§ 34-8A-3(A), 35-11-1, and 35-11-3 (para 3).
  The Court concluded that the metropolitan court has jurisdiction over replevin actions and may grant a plaintiff immediate possession of property wrongfully taken or other remedy arising under a replevin action within the jurisdiction of the magistrate court (para 3).
  The decision to reverse the dismissal was based on the jurisdictional authority of the metropolitan court over replevin actions, and the matter was remanded to address any further proceedings, including matters related to the parties’ release agreement (paras 3-4).