1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.

3 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.

6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO DARIA M. MILLER, 8 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NO. 29,459 THI OF NEW MEXICO AT THE VILLAGE AT ALAMEDA, LLC, AMBERCARE HOSPICE, INC., and LEIGH ANGELLIS, 14 Defendant-Appellee.

15 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANDOVAL COUNTY Louis P. McDonald, District Judge Michael D. Armstrong Albuquerque, NM for Appellant Jennifer Anderson Albuquerque, NM Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk PA Greg Gambill Albuquerque, NM Cuddy & McCarthy, LLP Albuquerque, NM for Appellees Ambercare Hospice and Leigh Angellis George R. McFall Albuquerque, NM for Appellee Thi of NM at the Village of Alameda

5 MEMORANDUM OPINION VIGIL, Judge.

7 Plaintiff appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants Leigh Angelliss and Ambercare Hospice, Inc. Persuaded by Plaintiff’s docketing statement that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard to Plaintiff’s claim for tortious interference with contract, we issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to summarily reverse and remand. Neither Defendant Leigh Angellis nor Defendant Ambercare Hospice, Inc., have filed a response to our notice, and the time for doing so has expired.

14 “Failure to file a memorandum in opposition constitutes acceptance of the disposition proposed in the calendar notice.” Frick v. Veazey, 116 N.M. 246, 247, 861 P.2d 287, 288 (Ct. App. 1993). Therefore, for the reasons set forth in our notice, we reverse the order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants Leigh Angellis and Ambercare Hospice, Inc. We remand for the district court to

1 apply the standards for tortious interference with contract by improper means articulated in Zarr v. Washington Tru Solutions, LLC, 2009-NMCA-050, ¶ 11, 146 3 N.M. 274, 208 P.3d 919 (overruling Los Alamos National Bank v. Martinez Surveying Servs., LLC, 2006-NMCA-081, 140 N.M. 41, 139 P.3d 201).

5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

7 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge WE CONCUR:

10 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge

12 ROBERT E. ROBLES, Judge