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 an appeal by the Plaintiffs against the district court's decisions which included granting the Defendants' motion for dismissal, denying Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, and granting Defendants' motion for attorney fees and costs.

Procedural History

• APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY, James T. Martin, District Judge: The district court issued an order granting Defendants' motion for dismissal, an order denying Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, and an order granting Defendants' motion for attorney fees and costs.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellants: Asserted that the district court's decisions should be reconsidered but did not present new facts, law, or arguments beyond those already considered by the Court of Appeals (para 2).
• Defendants-Appellees: Successfully moved for dismissal, opposed Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, and secured an order for attorney fees and costs from the district court.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting Defendants' motion for dismissal.
• Whether the district court erred in denying Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.
• Whether the district court erred in granting Defendants' motion for attorney fees and costs.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s orders granting Defendants' motion for dismissal, denying Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, and granting Defendants' motion for attorney fees and costs (para 3).

Reasons

• LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, with TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge, and STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge concurring: The Court of Appeals found that the Plaintiffs did not present any new facts, law, or arguments that were not already considered in the Court's notice of proposed disposition. The Plaintiffs' failure to clearly point out errors in fact or law in their memorandum in opposition, as required in summary calendar cases, led the Court to refer them to its previous analysis. Based on the reasons stated in the notice of proposed disposition and the memorandum opinion, the Court affirmed the district court's orders (paras 1-3).