New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2018

Boehmer v. Project Management & Development, Inc.

Boehmer v. Project Management & Development, Inc.
New Mexico Court of Appeals · Decided July 31, 2018

Boehmer v. Project Management & Development, 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Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 MONICA BOEHMER and STEVE KEMP, 3 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. No. A-1-CA-37164 PROJECT MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT, INC., and MICHAEL S. NEAS, 8 Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellees, and BOTTOM DRAWER, LLC; C.M. LATH AND PLASTER, INC.; PIONEER PAVING & GRADING, INC.; STOREFRONT SPECIALTIES & GLAZING, LLC; VILLANUEVA GRANITE & TILE, INC.; ROBERT UFFER d/b/a WHOLESALE MIRROR - EASTERNGATE GLASS, INC.; H. GLENN MURRAY and JANE DOE MURRAY; H. GLENN MURRAY & ASSOC.; JOHN DOES I-X; JANE DOES I-X; WHITE CORPORATIONS I-X; BLACK PARTNERSHIPS I-X; and GRAY LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES I-X, 21 Third-Party Defendants.

22 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Clay Campbell, District Judge Crowley & Gribble, PC Clayton E. Crowley Albuquerque, NM for Appellants Resnick & Louis, P.C.

6 Emily Dotson Albuquerque, NM for Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellees Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A.

10 David W. Buntin Edward Ricco Albuquerque, NM for Third-Party Defendant C. M. Lath and Plaster, Inc. Eaton Law Office, P.C.

15 Michael G. Smith Albuquerque, NM for Third-Party Defendants H. Glenn Murray and Jane Doe Murray; and H. Glenn Murray & Assoc.

19 MEMORANDUM OPINION VANZI, Chief Judge.

21 {1} Plaintiffs Monica Boehmer and Steve Kemp appeal from the district court’s order denying their motion for reinstatement and order denying their motion to recuse.

23 In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to summarily dismiss for lack of a final order. Plaintiffs filed a concurrence to proposed summary disposition,

1 stating that they “concur with the Notice, Proposed Summary Disposition[.]” [MIS 1] Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order.

4 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 ______________________________ 6 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge

7 WE CONCUR:

8 ___________________________ M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge

10 ___________________________ STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge

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