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

• A group of plaintiffs appealed a district court's order that granted summary judgment against their fourth claim. The plaintiffs had sought a writ of certiorari from the Court of Appeals to reverse the district court's dismissal of their appeal as untimely and their request for equitable relief. The City had allegedly failed to issue a written decision to six of the plaintiffs after stating it would do so, which the plaintiffs argued violated their due process rights and warranted equitable tolling.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ fourth claim.
• Court of Appeals of the State of New Mexico, March 27, 2020 Order: Denied Plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari and declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction to review the district court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' appeal as untimely, but construed Plaintiffs' issue regarding equitable relief as a direct appeal.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that their due process rights were violated due to the City's failure to issue a written decision to six of the plaintiffs, contending that equitable tolling should apply.
• Defendant-Appellee (City of Albuquerque): Supported the district court's order granting summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ fourth claim and opposed the Plaintiffs' arguments for equitable relief and the timeliness of their administrative appeal.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in dismissing Plaintiffs’ appeal as untimely.
• Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to equitable relief on the merits of their claims due to not having had an opportunity to be heard.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ fourth claim.

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, Chief Judge (Kristina Bogardus, Judge and Jacqueline R. Medina, Judge concurring): The Court of Appeals was unpersuaded by the Plaintiffs' memorandum in opposition, particularly regarding the district court's alleged error in the timeliness of the Plaintiffs' administrative appeal and their entitlement to equitable relief. The Court noted that the Plaintiffs abandoned the issue of entitlement to equitable relief by failing to refute the calendar notice in their memorandum in opposition. The Court also referenced previous cases to support the principle that issues not contested in a memorandum in opposition are considered abandoned. Consequently, the Court affirmed the district court's decision based on the reasons stated in the notice of proposed disposition and the principles of law regarding abandonment of issues (paras 1-4).