New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2013

Webster v. Serna

Webster v. Serna
New Mexico Court of Appeals · Decided September 23, 2013

Webster v. Serna

Opinion

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Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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

2 MARGETTE WEBSTER and DAVID WEBSTER, 4 Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. NO. 32,885 EMMA SERNA, d/b/a SERNA & ASSOCIATES CONSTRUCTION CO., LLC., a/k/a SERNA & ASSOCIATES, LLC, 10 Defendant-Appellant.

11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Denise Barela Shepherd, District Judge

13 Alex Chisholm Albuquerque, NM for Appellees Emma Serna Albuquerque Pro se Appellant 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION GARCIA, Judge.

3 {1} Defendant seeks to appeal from an order awarding summary judgment to a former co-defendant, and a subsequent order denying a motion for reconsideration.

5 We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to dismiss. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we dismiss the appeal.

7 {2} As described at greater length in the notice of proposed summary disposition, notice of appeal was not timely filed with respect to the former order, and with respect to the latter order, the proceedings are not final. Nothing in Defendant’s responsive memorandum takes issue with our analysis relative to timeliness and finality. We therefore adhere to our prior assessment of these matters.

12 {3} In closing, we acknowledge Defendant’s continuing belief that the district court has erred. [MIO I-III] However, this does not alter or diminish the jurisdictional limitations implicated in this case.

15 {} Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed summary disposition, we remain unpersuaded that this matter is properly before us.

17 The appeal is therefore summarily dismissed.

1 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED.

3 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge

4 WE CONCUR:

6 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge

8 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.