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 Cathy Gunter, the Appellant, and Kim Audette, the Cross-Appellant, related to the estate of Robert V. Audette, deceased. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice, which led to appeals from both parties. The litigation history includes a settlement agreement between the parties, which the district court later considered for enforcement upon reopening the case for this limited purpose.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, November 10, 2022: Case dismissed with prejudice.
• District Court of Bernalillo County, February 24, 2023: Case reopened for the limited purpose of considering Appellant’s motion seeking enforcement of the parties’ settlement agreement.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Opposed the initial proposed summary disposition, raising issues related to litigation that occurred before the case was dismissed with prejudice.
• Cross-Appellant: Filed a motion requesting sanctions against the Appellant and did not file a memorandum in opposition to the proposed summary disposition, leading to the abandonment of issues raised in the cross-appeal.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's order dismissing the case with prejudice was correct.
• Whether the issues related to litigation occurring before the settlement agreement and the dismissal of the case were properly before the district court upon its limited reopening.
• Whether sanctions should be imposed against the Appellant.

Disposition

• The motion for sanctions against the Appellant is denied.
• The district court's decision to dismiss the case with prejudice is affirmed.

Reasons

• The panel, consisting of Judges J. Miles Hanisee, Jacqueline R. Medina, and Zachary A. Ives, concluded that the Appellant's memorandum in opposition did not persuade them to alter their initial proposed summary disposition. The Cross-Appellant's failure to file a memorandum in opposition resulted in the abandonment of the issues raised in the cross-appeal. The court found that issues related to litigation before the settlement agreement and the dismissal order were not before the district court upon its limited reopening and, accordingly, were not considered on appeal. The court's reasoning also referenced the principles of the law of the case doctrine and claim preclusion, supporting the decision to affirm the district court's dismissal of the case with prejudice (paras 1-4).