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 a dispute between William Gardner, the Plaintiff/Counterdefendant-Appellee, and Eric Rivera, doing business as Southwest Metal Design, the Defendant/Counterclaimant/Third-Party Plaintiff/Counterdefendant-Appellant. Kathryn Gardner is also involved as a Third-Party Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellee. Specific details of the events leading to the case are not provided in the memorandum opinion.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Sandoval County, John F. Davis, District Judge, with an adverse judgment against the Defendant following a bench trial. The exact nature of the judgment or the claims involved is not detailed in the provided text.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff/Counterdefendant-Appellee (William Gardner): [Not applicable or not found]
• Defendant/Counterclaimant/Third-Party Plaintiff/Counterdefendant-Appellant (Eric Rivera): Requested an extension of time to file a memorandum in opposition to the court's notice of proposed summary disposition (para 1).
• Third-Party Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellee (Kathryn Gardner): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• (N/A) The memorandum opinion does not specify the legal issues that were decided by the Court of Appeals.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s adverse judgment against the Defendant following a bench trial due to the Defendant's failure to submit a memorandum in opposition within the granted extension period (para 1).

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (M. Monica Zamora, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring): The Court decided to affirm the district court's judgment against the Defendant primarily because the Defendant did not submit a memorandum in opposition to the court's notice of proposed summary disposition within the extended timeframe. Over two weeks had passed since the expiration of the requested extension, and no memorandum was received from the Defendant, leading to the affirmation of the district court's judgment (para 1).