AI Generated Opinion Summaries

Decision Information

Decision Content

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 case involves Broadway Apartments as the Plaintiff-Appellee and Ray Valdez as the Defendant-Appellant. The Supreme Court of New Mexico accepted certification for this case, which was held in abeyance pending the Court's disposition in a related matter, Padilla v. Torres. During the pendency, a Notice of Suggestion of Death concerning the Defendant was filed. (paras 1-2)

Procedural History

  • February 15, 2016: The Supreme Court accepted certification and held the matter in abeyance pending the disposition in Padilla v. Torres. (para 1)
  • August 17, 2022: Defendant’s counsel filed a Notice of Suggestion of Death. (para 2)

Parties' Submissions

  • (N/A)

Legal Issues

  • Whether the certification question presented in this matter is addressed by the Court’s opinion in Padilla v. Torres. (para 4)

Disposition

  • The Court’s February 15, 2016, order holding the matter in abeyance is withdrawn. (para 7)
  • The parties are ordered to file a notice of suggestion of death in the metropolitan court pursuant to Rule 3-403 NMRA. (para 8)
  • The matter is remanded to the metropolitan court for further proceedings. (para 9)

Reasons

  • The Supreme Court of New Mexico, per curiam, decided to withdraw the abeyance order following the issuance of an opinion in Padilla v. Torres, which reversed and remanded that matter for a new trial. This decision in Padilla addressed the certification question presented in the current case. Consequently, the Court exercised its discretion under Rule 12-405(B) NMRA to dispose of the matter by a non-precedential order, leading to the remand of the case to the metropolitan court for further proceedings. The decision was concurred by Chief Justice David K. Thomson, Justices Michael E. Vigil, C. Shannon Bacon, Julie J. Vargas, and Briana H. Zamora. (paras 3-9)
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.