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 entered into a lease and amended leases with third parties for the construction of a telecommunications tower on his property. These leases were assigned to Sierra Nevada Property Management Company, LLC (SNPM), which terminated the lease without removing its towers and improvements within the designated time, leading the Plaintiff to claim these as abandoned property. The Plaintiff alleged damages when SNPM engaged Advanced Tower Services, Inc. (ATS) to trespass and remove the property six years later (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Roosevelt County, March 25, 2013: Dismissed the case without prejudice for inaction for the previous one hundred eighty days.
• District Court of Roosevelt County, April 9, 2013: Reinstated the case upon Plaintiff's motion.
• District Court of Roosevelt County, August 28, 2014: Granted motions to dismiss from SNPM and ATS for failure to prosecute and from TeleBEEPER of New Mexico, Inc. (TeleBEEPER) for failure to state a claim.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the leases and their amendments assigned to SNPM were terminated without removal of towers and improvements, leading to their abandonment and becoming his property. Claimed damages from the trespass and removal of property by SNPM and ATS, and later added TeleBEEPER as a defendant for its alleged involvement.
• SNPM: Asserted failure of the Plaintiff to exercise due diligence in serving SNPM with process.
• ATS: Joined SNPM and TeleBEEPER's motions to dismiss, alleging that dismissal was warranted due to the Plaintiff's inaction.
• TeleBEEPER: Contended that the Plaintiff named TeleBEEPER to avoid dismissal based on inaction regarding SNPM and that the amended complaint failed to state a claim against it.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in dismissing SNPM and ATS for the Plaintiff's failure to prosecute.
• Whether the district court erred in dismissing TeleBEEPER for failure to state a claim.

Disposition

• Affirmed the district court’s decision and order dismissing with prejudice the claims against SNPM and ATS.
• Reversed the district court’s dismissal of TeleBEEPER and remanded for further proceedings.

Reasons

• JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge: Concluded that the Plaintiff did not act with due diligence in serving SNPM with process, justifying dismissal. Found no abuse of discretion in dismissing ATS, as the Plaintiff had not advanced his case against ATS outside of discovery requests filed one year ago. However, determined that the district court misapplied Rule 1-012(B)(6) in dismissing TeleBEEPER, as it did not limit its analysis to the facts alleged in the amended complaint and misapplied the concept of a “middleman” (paras 7-37).
  MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge: Concurred with WECHSLER, J.
  TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge (dissenting): Partially dissented, agreeing with the dismissal of SNPM but arguing that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing ATS under Rule 1-041(E)(1). GARCIA, J., believed that the Plaintiff had not been given a reasonable opportunity to proceed to trial with due diligence once all parties were properly joined, and thus, the dismissal of ATS was premature (paras 40-46).