New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2013

Cach, LLC v. Riley

Cach, LLC v. Riley
New Mexico Court of Appeals · Decided September 17, 2013

Cach, LLC v. Riley

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Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 CACH, LLC, 3 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellee, v. No. 32,931 DAVID W. RILEY, 6 Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/Appellant

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Denise Barela Shepherd, District Judge Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A.

11 Jennifer G. Anderson Emil J. Kiehne Albuquerque, NM Kanter & Grubesic, P.A.

15 Dana K. Grubesic Albuquerque, NM for Appellee Law Offices of Roger Moore Roger Moore Albuquerque, NM for Appellant 2 MEMORANDUM OPINION BUSTAMANTE, Judge.

4 {1} Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff seeks to appeal from the district court’s order granting his motion for summary judgment due to lack of standing and denying his motion for reconsideration of the court’s ruling on attorney fees related to Plaintiff’s claim. We issued a notice of proposed disposition, proposing to summarily dismiss for lack of a final, appealable order, due to outstanding counterclaims and a lack of certification language that could make the order immediately appealable under Rule 1-054(B)(1) NMRA. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant has filed a response to our notice, supporting our proposed summary disposition. Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff has not filed a response. “Failure to file a memorandum in opposition constitutes acceptance of the disposition proposed in the calendar notice.” Frick v. Veazey, 1993-NMCA-119, ¶ 2, 116 N.M. 246, 861 P.2d 287. We, therefore, summarily dismiss Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff’s appeal for lack of a final, appealable order for the reasons set forth in our notice.

17 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge

1 WE CONCUR:

3 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

5 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge

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