This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1
EL PASO MACHINE & STEEL, INC., 2 a Texas corporation, 3 Plaintiff-Appellee, 4

v. NO. 33,214 5 DND CONTRACTORS, INC., 6 a New Mexico corporation and 7 THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE 8 COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation, 9 Defendants-Appellants, 10 and 11 DND CONTRACTORS, INC., 12 a New Mexico corporation, 13 Counter-Claimant-Appellant, 14

v. 15 EL PASO MACHINE & STEEL, INC., 16 a Texas corporation, 17 Counter-Defendant-Appellee, 18 consolidated with 192 SRI OF NEW MEXICO, LLC, 1 a New Mexico limited liability corporation, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. 4 DND CONTRACTORS, INC., 5 a New Mexico corporation and 6 THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE 7 COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation, 8 Defendants-Appellants. 9

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY 10 Karen L. Parsons, District Judge 11
The Allison Law Firm, P.C. 12 Michael Allison 13 Albuquerque, NM 14 for Appellees 15 Lorenz Law 16 Alice T. Lorenz 17 Albuquerque, NM 18 Calvert Menicucci, P.C., 19 Sean R. Calvert 20 Albuquerque, NM 21 for Appellants 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION 23 KENNEDY, Chief Judge. 243 {1} DND Contractors, Inc. and The Hartford Fire Insurance Company (collectively, 1 Defendants) appeal an order awardi ng punitive damages against DND. [DS 12-13] 2 In our notice of proposed summary dispositi on, we proposed to affirm. In response 3 to this Court’s notice, El Paso Machin e & Steel, Inc. and SRI of New Mexico, LLC 4 (collectively, Plaintiffs) have filed a memorandum in support, and Defendants have 5 filed a memorandum in opposition, both of which we have duly considered. As we 6 do not find Defendants’ arguments to be persuasive, we affirm. 7
{2} In their docketing statement, the only i ssue Defendants raised was whether the 8 district court erred in relying on DND’s litigation conduct as evidence that DND knew 9 that it had no legitimate reason to refuse to pay Plaintiffs under the terms of the 10 contracts. [DS 12-13] In this Court’ s notice of proposed summary disposition, we 11 proposed to find no error because the district court’s order did not unambiguously 12 demonstrate that the court relied on DND’s litigation conduct in its decision to award 13 punitive damages. See Herrera v. Roman Catholic Church , 1991-NMCA-089, ¶ 14, 14 112 N.M. 717, 819 P.2d 264 (“Unless clearly erroneous or deficient, findings of the 15 trial court will be cons trued so as to uphold a judgment rather than to reverse it.”). In 16 addition, we stated that, even if the court erred in finding that DND’s litigation 17 conduct was evidence of bad faith, the erroneous finding was not a basis for reversal 18 where the remaining findings supporte d an award of punitive damages. See Normand 19 v. Ray , 1990-NMSC-006, ¶ 35, 109 N.M. 403, 785 P.2d 743 (“[W]here specific 204 findings adopted by the trial court are show n to be erroneous, if they are unnecessary 1 to support the judgment of the court and other valid material findings uphold the trial 2 court’s decision, the trial court’s decision will not be overturned.”). This is because 3 “[f]indings of fact are to be liberally construed so as to uphold the judgment of the 4 trial court, and findings are sufficient if a fair consideration of all of them taken 5 together justifies the judgment of the trial court.” Id. 6
{3} In Defendants’ memorandum in opposition, they argue that Santa Fe Custom 7 Shutters & Doors, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. , 2005-NMCA-051, 137 N.M. 524, 8 113 P.3d 347, requires reversal of the punitive damages award. [MIO 1-3, 6] In that 9 case, we held that the erroneous admissi on of evidence, which was both objected to 10 and clearly relied upon by the district court in its decision, warranted reversal on 11 appeal. Id. ¶¶ 19-26. However, Santa Fe Shuttersis distinguishable. The case 12 involved the admission of extensive testimony regarding the defendant’s wrongful 13 conduct with respect to a third party, and this evidence, which tended to show that the 14 defendant had acted wrongfully in the pastin the same manner alleged in the case 15 being tried, was admitted in violation of th e Rules of Evidence. Here, in contrast, 16 DND’s litigation conduct was a matter that was necessarily known to the district court 17 and was not erroneously presented to it. Therefore, the only question is whether the 18 district court could properly consider th at conduct as eviden ce of DND’s awareness 19 of its bad faith in the performance of its contracts. As we have explained, the district 205 court’s order is ambiguous as to whether it infact did so, and this Court will construe 1 any ambiguity in favor of the propriety of the order. Accordingly, we find Santa Fe 2 Shuttersto be inapposite to this matter. 3
{4} In response to our proposed conclusion that affirmance is proper because, even 4 if the district court made an improper finding regarding DND’s litigation conduct, the 5 findings as a whole supported a claim of punitive damages, Defendants have raised 6 a new argument. They do not simply assert that the facts as found by the district court 7 do not support the award of punitive damages. Instead, they contend that the evidence 8 presented to the district court was not su fficient to support the findings. [MIO 2, 6-20] 9 Defendants never raised any i ssue regarding the sufficiencyof the evidence in their 10 docketing statement, and they have not filed a motion to amend the docketing 11 statement in order to add this issue. See Rule 12-208(F) NMRA (stating that this 12 Court will permit a party to amend the docketing statement for good cause shown); 13 Rule 12-210(D)(3) NMRA (stating that a motion to amend the docketing statement 14 may be filed at the same time as a memorandum in opposition to a notice of proposed 15 summary disposition). Even if we were in clined to construe their argument as a 16 motion to amend the docketing statement, we note that Defendants have not 17 established the requirements for a successful motion to amend. See State v. Rael , 18 1983-NMCA-081, ¶¶ 7-8, 10-11, 14-17, 100 N.M. 193, 668 P.2d 309 (setting forth 19 those requirements). We also note thatDefendants’ memorandum encourages this 206 Court to view the facts in the light most favorable to their position rather than the 1 district court’s decision and that their argument is therefore contrary to our standard 2 of review. See Weidler v. Big J Enters., Inc. , 1998-NMCA-021, ¶ 30, 124 N.M. 591, 3 953 P.2d 1089 (stating that, in reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, the 4 reviewing court views the evidence in the li ght most favorable to the prevailing party 5 and disregards evidence and inferences to the contrary). Furthermore, Defendants’ 6 memorandum does not set forth all the evidence material to th e issue of punitive 7 damages, in that it fails to describe all of the evidence supporting the district court’s 8 decision. “Where the appellant fails to include the substance of all the evidence 9 bearing upon a proposition, [this] Court . . . will not consider a challenge to the 10 sufficiency of the evidence.” Wachocki v. Bernalillo Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t , 11 2010-NMCA-021, ¶ 17, 147 N.M. 720, 228 P.3d 504 (internal quotation marks and 12 citation omitted). When a party discusses only those facts that tend to show that some 13 of the district court’s fi ndings were contradicted, th e party does not address the 14 substance of all the evidence bearing on the findings and, therefore, necessarily fails 15 to demonstrate how the evidence supporti ng the district court’s findings does not 16 amount to substantial evidence. Id . To the degree that De fendants can be deemed to 17 have filed a motion to amend the docketing statement to add an argument regarding 18 the insufficiency of the ev idence, their motion does not demonstrate that amendment 19 is warranted. 207 {5} Therefore, for the reasons stated hereand in our notice of proposed summary 1 disposition, we affirm. 2
{6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 3

____________________________ ________ 4 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge 5

WE CONCUR: 6

___________________________ 7 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 8

___________________________ 9 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 10