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

• Socuno, Ltd., a New Mexico limited liability company (Appellant), appealed a district court order that was entered in an appeal from an administrative decision. The City of Farmington City Council had reversed the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation, which had initially been in favor of the Appellant.

Procedural History

• District Court of San Juan County, June 11, 2012: The district court issued an order in an appeal from an administrative decision that was adverse to the Appellant.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the notice of appeal and docketing statement should be construed together as a timely filed non-conforming document that complies with the relevant statutes and rules for seeking review in the Court of Appeals. Relied on previous case law to support the argument that a timely petition for writ of certiorari had been filed.
• Appellee: In opposition, presumably argued against the Appellant's procedural stance, although specific arguments from the Appellee are not detailed in the provided text.

Legal Issues

• Whether the notice of appeal and docketing statement filed by the Appellant can be construed together as a timely filed non-conforming document that complies with the statutory and rule requirements for a petition for writ of certiorari.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed for failure to file a timely petition for writ of certiorari.

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with Michael D. Bustamante and Linda M. Vanzi concurring, the Court found that current case law does not support the Appellant's contention that a notice of appeal and docketing statement can substitute for a petition for writ of certiorari. Specifically, the Court clarified that, according to controlling New Mexico Supreme Court case law and recent appellate decisions, a notice of appeal alone is not an adequate substitution for a petition for writ of certiorari. The Court further explained that while a docketing statement might be accepted in lieu of a petition for writ of certiorari, it must be filed within thirty days of the district court’s order to be considered timely. In this case, the docketing statement was filed approximately sixty days after the district court's order, rendering it untimely. The Court also noted that the arguments presented by the Appellant did not constitute the kind of unusual circumstances that would justify an untimely petition. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal due to lack of jurisdiction stemming from the untimely filing.