Community 1st Bank Las Vegas v. Quick Care, LLC

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Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 COMMUNITY 1st BANK LAS VEGAS, 3 Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 35,090 QUICK CARE, LLC, a New Mexico limited liability company, and ALFONSO ARCHULETA, 8 Defendants-Appellants.

9 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY Manuel I Arrieta, District Judge Moses, Dunn, Farmer & Tuthill, P.C.

12 Nathan C. Sprague Albuquerque, NM for Appellee Alfonso Archuleta Las Cruces, NM Pro Se Appellant 18 MEMORANDUM OPINION SUTIN, Judge.

1 {1} Defendant Alfonso Archuleta appeals, pro se, from a district court order denying a motion to set aside a judgment pursuant to Rule 1-060(B) NMRA. We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendant has responded with a pro se memorandum in opposition. We affirm.

5 {2} As we previously observed, Defendant’s notice of appeal indicates that he is appealing from two orders. [RP 719] The first order is a January 30, 2014, order that included the denial of his motion to intervene. [RP 461, 722] We note that the ruling was based on the fact that Defendant Archuleta was already a party in the case. [RP 461 (¶ 1)] In any event, the matter became moot when Defendant entered into a subsequent settlement and a stipulated order of dismissal with prejudice in August 2014. [RP 613] {3} The second order listed on the notice of appeal [RP 719] is a September 22, 2015, order that denied Defendant Archuleta’s motion to set aside the original judgment. [RP 700] The Rule 1-060(B) motion argued that the judgment should be set aside as applied to Defendant Quick Care, LLC. [RP 617] Our calendar notice proposed to hold that the district court properly denied the motion on the ground that Defendant Archuleta could not represent Defendant Quick Care. See LR3-202(B) NMRA (prohibiting pro se parties from representing corporations); see also NMSA 1978, § 36-2-27 (1999) (prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law). Because 1 Defendant Archuleta’s memorandum in opposition continues to attempt to advocate on behalf on Defendant Quick Care, we conclude that he has not established any error below.

4 {4} For the reasons set forth in this Opinion, we affirm.

5 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED

6 __________________________________ 7 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge

8 WE CONCUR:

9 _________________________________ MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge

11 _________________________________ STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge