New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2018

Mendez v. Cellco Partnership, Inc.

Mendez v. Cellco Partnership, Inc.
New Mexico Court of Appeals · Decided April 2, 2018

Mendez v. Cellco Partnership, Inc.

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Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 EDWARD F. MENDEZ and RAYMOND J. MCQUEEN, 4 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. No. A-1-CA-35893 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, INC. d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, INC.; GO WIRELESS INC.; CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC.; NORTH SHORE AGENCY; IC SYSTEM; RECEIVABLE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, LLC; NATIONS RECOVERY CENTER, INC.; NANCY B. CLARK, SVP-OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE and TERRI WALKER, EXECUTIVE RELATIONS, CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, INC. d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, 15 Defendants-Appellees.

16 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY RAYMOND Z. ORTIZ, District Judge Raymond J. McQueen Santa Fe, NM Pro Se Appellant Edward F. Mendez Santa Fe, NM Pro Se Appellant Hinkle Shanor LLP Benjamin F. Feuchter Albuquerque, NM for Appellees 6 MEMORANDUM OPINION HANISEE, Judge.

8 {1} Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s order granting (1) motion to dismiss first amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and (2) motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. This Court issued a second calendar notice proposing to affirm the district court’s order on February 6, 2018. On February 27, 2018, Defendants filed a memorandum in support of this Court’s second notice of proposed disposition. On March 1, 2018, Defendant Nations Recovery Center, Inc. joined in the memorandum in support filed on February 27, 2018. To this date, Plaintiffs have not filed a memorandum in opposition to this Court’s second notice of proposed disposition, and the time for doing so has now run. Accordingly, we rely on the reasoning set out in this Court’s second notice of proposed disposition and we affirm.

18 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 J. MILES HANSIEE, Judge WE CONCUR:

3 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge

5 EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge

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