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 case involves Brenda C. Price, a self-represented litigant, who appealed from the district court's omnibus order. This order granted motions to dismiss by several defendants, including JP Morgan Chase, NA; Chase Home Finance; Bank of America NA; S&S Financial Group, LLC; Linda Scholler; and Jeanie Soule-Meihous. Additionally, the district court denied Price's motions to vacate the dismissal and petition for rehearing (para 1).

Procedural History

• District Court of Taos County, Jeff Foster McElroy, District Judge: Granted Defendants' motions to dismiss and denied Plaintiff's motions to vacate the dismissal and petition for rehearing.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued against the district court's omnibus order granting Defendants' motions to dismiss and the order denying Plaintiff's motions to vacate the dismissal and petition for rehearing. Specific arguments made by the Plaintiff-Appellant are not detailed in the provided text (para 1).
• Defendants-Appellees: Successfully moved for dismissal of the case at the district court level. Specific arguments made by the Defendants-Appellees are not detailed in the provided text.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting Defendants' motions to dismiss.
• Whether the district court erred in denying Plaintiff's motions to vacate the dismissal and petition for rehearing.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s orders granting Defendants' motions to dismiss and denying Plaintiff's motions to vacate the dismissal and petition for rehearing (para 3).

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J., with Henry M. Bohnhoff, J., and Emil J. Kiehne, J., concurring:
  The Court of Appeals considered and was unpersuaded by the facts, law, and/or arguments asserted in Plaintiff’s memorandum in opposition. The court referenced the burden on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law, noting that the Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition either addressed issues already considered in the Court's notice of proposed disposition or failed to persuade the Court that the district court had erred. The repetition of earlier arguments did not fulfill the requirement to specifically point out errors of law and fact. Thus, for the reasons stated in their notice of proposed disposition and in the memorandum opinion, the Court affirmed the district court’s orders (paras 1-2).