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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 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.

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO KATE BRAVERMAN, 3 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 31,574 LPL FINANCIAL CORPORATION, 6 Defendant-Appellee, and RICHARD LEES; JONATHAN THORNTON; and ALAN GOLDSTEIN, 10 Defendants.

11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY Raymond Z. Ortiz, District Judge Gary W. Boyle Santa Fe, NM for Appellant Lewis and Roca LLP Ross L. Crown Albuquerque, NM for Appellee LPL Financial

1 Bannerman & Williams Margaret A. Graham John A. Bannerman Albuquerque, NM for Defendant Richard Lees Richard S. Lees, PA Richard S. Lees Santa Fe, NM for Defendant Alan Goldstein 10 MEMORANDUM OPINION BUSTAMANTE, Judge.

12 Appellant Kate Braverman (Plaintiff) appeals from the district court’s order that dismisses her claim of malicious abuse of process against Appellee LPL Financial Corporation (Defendant).

15 In her docketing statement, Plaintiff argued that the district court erred (1) in granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss her malicious abuse of process claim [DS 4; RP Vol.II/385, 396; Vol.III/426, 465] and (2) in denying her oral motion to amend her complaint. [DS 3, 4] We issued a notice, proposing to affirm both issues. Plaintiff has not filed a memorandum in opposition. Therefore, for the reasons extensively detailed in our notice, we affirm both issues. See Frick v. Veazey, 116 N.M. 246, 247, 861 P.2d 287, 288 (Ct. App. 1993) (providing that failure to respond to a calendar notice constitutes acceptance of the proposed disposition).

1 Defendant filed a memorandum in support, and we briefly address Defendant’s memorandum. As Defendant has acknowledged, our notice disposes of the issues raised by Plaintiff in her docketing statement. [MIS 2] Although not argued in Plaintiff’s docketing statement [DS 3], Defendant nonetheless requests that this Court address also the merits of Plaintiff’s malicious abuse of process claim in relation to its interpleader action. [MIS 2] We find it unnecessary to do so since Plaintiff did not raise arguments in her docketing statement in relation to the interpleader action, and our affirmance of the issues raised is dispositive. See generally Rule 12-208(D)(4) NMRA (providing that the docketing statement sets forth the issues on appeal).

10 To conclude, we affirm.

11 IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge WE CONCUR:

16 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

18 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge