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 plaintiff-appellant sought to amend his complaint to add a defendant to his claims of malicious abuse of process and fraudulent conveyance. The district court denied this motion. The plaintiff-appellant then filed a motion to reconsider this denial, which the district court also denied (paras 2, 4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, July 18, 2012: Denied the plaintiff-appellant's motion to amend his complaint to add a defendant (para 4).
• District Court of Bernalillo County, August 10, 2012: Denied the plaintiff-appellant's motion for reconsideration of the July 18 order (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the district court's denial of his motion to amend the complaint would result in his cause of action being lost or irreparably harmed due to statute of limitations issues and collateral estoppel. He also contended that the matter was of significant importance and required immediate appellate review (paras 6-7).
• Defendant-Appellant: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's order denying the plaintiff-appellant's motion to amend his complaint, and its subsequent order denying reconsideration, are final and appealable orders (paras 3, 5).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that the orders from the district court were not final appealable orders (para 8).

Reasons

• Per Linda M. Vanzi, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and Jonathan B. Sutin, J., concurring): The Court of Appeals determined that its jurisdiction is limited to final, appealable orders. The court found that the orders in question did not meet the criteria for finality as they did not conclusively determine the disputed question or prevent a judgment. The appellant's general assertions regarding the importance of the appeal and potential harm from the denial of the motion to amend were deemed insufficient without more detailed explanation or relevant authority. The court emphasized that unsupported propositions and inadequately developed arguments would not be considered. The appellant was advised that he could appeal once a final order is entered in the case (paras 2-8).