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

• Santa Fe Pacific Trust, Inc. (SFPT) and Bigbyte, both Florida corporations doing business in New Mexico, filed a lawsuit against the City of Albuquerque and other defendants. SFPT, owning land and an office building in Albuquerque, alleged the City periodically stated its intention to condemn their property, claiming damages for inverse condemnation, deprivation of due process, tortious interference with contract, and breach of a real estate exchange agreement. Bigbyte, a lessee of SFPT's commercial space, joined SFPT in the lawsuit for the first three counts but was not involved in the real estate exchange agreement (Count IV) (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Petitioners (SFPT and Bigbyte): Argued that the City of Albuquerque's actions regarding the condemnation of SFPT's property constituted inverse condemnation, deprivation of due process, tortious interference with contract, and breach of a real estate exchange agreement. Bigbyte joined SFPT in the first three counts but was not a party to the real estate exchange agreement (Count IV) (para 2).
• Defendant-Respondent (City of Albuquerque): Successfully moved for summary judgment against SFPT and Bigbyte on Counts I and II, leading to the dismissal of these claims. Opposed the application for interlocutory appeal filed by SFPT and Bigbyte and filed a motion to dismiss Bigbyte’s appeal as untimely (paras 3, 5, 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the summary judgment dismissing Counts I and II was a final order as to Bigbyte, thus making its appeal untimely (para 8).
• Whether the amended notice of appeal adding Bigbyte as an appellant was untimely (para 8).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of Bigbyte's appeal as untimely, concluding that the summary judgment was a final order as to Bigbyte (para 34).

Reasons

• The Court, per Justice Edward L. Chávez, held that the summary judgment was a final order as to Bigbyte because it disposed of all of Bigbyte's claims against the City, and there was no express language in the summary judgment indicating it was not final as to Bigbyte (paras 9-24). The Court rejected Bigbyte's arguments that the summary judgment was not final or that various doctrines precluded dismissal of its appeal. The Court found no ambiguity in the summary judgment that would allow for a liberal interpretation in favor of permitting an appeal. It also noted that Bigbyte had control over the language of the summary judgment and could have requested language to indicate it was not final as to them but did not do so. The Court concluded that Bigbyte's failure to file a notice of appeal within the required timeframe rendered its appeal untimely, and there were no unusual circumstances or judicial errors that would warrant overlooking the procedural defect (paras 25-33).