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 plaintiffs, Rod Forsythe, individually and as the personal representative for the wrongful death of his daughter, Ashley Forsythe, along with Christine Forsythe (mother) and Danisha Goldberg (sister), filed a lawsuit against Ford Motor Company and several other defendants following the death of Ashley Forsythe in a motor vehicle accident (para 2).

Procedural History

• District Court: Granted Forsythe an extension to file a notice of appeal (para 4).
• Court of Appeals, Forsythe v. Ford Motor Co., A-1-CA-37367: Reversed the district court’s extension of time to appeal and dismissed Ford’s appeal (para 5).
• Court of Appeals, Forsythe v. Ford Motor Co., A-1-CA-36702: Dismissed Forsythe’s appeal for being untimely filed (para 5).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Petitioners: Argued that a clerical error led to the late filing of the notice of appeal and requested an extension of time to file appeal, which was granted by the district court (para 4).
• Defendant-Respondent (Ford Motor Company): Filed a motion to reconsider the district court's decision to grant an extension of time for Forsythe to file an appeal, which was denied. Ford then appealed the denial (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion by granting Forsythe an extension of time to file a notice of appeal due to a clerical error (para 6).
• Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the district court’s decision and dismissing Forsythe’s appeal as untimely (para 9).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico granted Forsythe the relief requested, reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the appeal (para 12).

Reasons

• Justices David K. Thomson, Michael E. Vigil, Barbara J. Vigil, and C. Shannon Bacon concurred in the decision. The Supreme Court found that the district court had correctly determined that the circumstances constituted excusable neglect under Rule 12-201(E)(3) and granted Forsythe a retroactive two-day extension to file a notice of appeal. The Court criticized the Court of Appeals for narrowly construing excusable neglect and for substituting its judgment for that of the trial court. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of deciding appeals on their merits and the equitable nature of determining excusable neglect, which includes considering all relevant circumstances surrounding the party's omission. The Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the extension and remanded for the Court of Appeals to reinstate the appeal (paras 6-11).