This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 SAMMIE SINGH, SR., SAMMIE SINGH, JR., ED 2 PROVENCIO, LUPE GARCIA, JONNY DIAZ and 3 JOHN FLEMING and DR. NATHAN E. BOYD 4 ESTATE, BY JAMES SCOTT BOYD, PERSONAL 5 REPRESENTATIVE, and JAMES SCOTT BOYD, individually, 6 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 7 v. No. 33,672 8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, STATE OF NEW 9 MEXICO, ELEPHANT BUTTE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 10 and CITY OF LAS CRUCES, 11 Defendants-Appellees. 12 Consolidated with 13 SAMMIE SINGH, SR., SAMMIE SINGH, JR., ED 14 PROVENCIO, LUPE GARCIA, JONNY DIAZ and 15 JOHN FLEMING and DR. NATHAN E. BOYD ESTATE, 16 BY JAMES SCOTT BOYD, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, 17 and JAMES SCOTT BOYD, individually, 18 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 19 v. No. 33,968 20 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, STATE OF NEW 21 MEXICO, ELEPHANT BUTTE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 222 and CITY OF LAS CRUCES, 1 Defendants-Appellees. 2 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 3 James J. Wechsler, District Judge 4 Robert S. Simon 5 Albuquerque, NM 6 for Appellants 7 Environment & Natural Resources Division 8 United States Department of Justice 9 Matthew Littleton 10 Washington, DC 11 for Appellee United States of America 12 Law Office of Steven L. Hernandez, P.C. 13 Samantha R. Barncastle 14 Las Cruces, NM 15 for Appellee Elephant Butte Irrigation District 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 BUSTAMANTE, Judge. 18
{1} Appellants filed separate appeals fro m two orders entered by the district 19 court—the February 17, 2014, order gran ting partial summary judgment on certain 20 issues, denying Appellants’ motion for su mmary judgment, and setting a scheduling 21 conference [No. 33,968 RP 4664] , as well as the June 18, 2014, order denying 223 Appellants’ motion to stay further proceedings in Stream System 97-104 [No. 33,968 1 RP 5335] . Appellees United States and Elephant Butte Irrigation District filed 2 motions to dismiss each appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Appellants filed 3 responses to the motions to dismiss, and we granted Appellees permission to file a 4 reply brief in Case No. 33,968. Having dul y considered each of these filings, we 5 consolidate the appeals and dismiss both for the reasons stated in this Opinion. We 6 note that any citations in this Opinion to the record proper are to the record proper 7 filed in Case No. 33,968, since that record is much less voluminous. 8
{2} Initially, we deny Appellants’ request to file a sur-reply brief in Case No. 9 33,968. The sur-reply brief pro ffered by Appellants is thirty(30) pages long, includes 10 attachments that have been previously submitted to this Court, and offers nothing new 11 for our consideration. Counsel for Appellants is cautioned to refrain from repetitious 12 and burdensome filings in the future. 13
{3} We also note that counsel for Appe llants has failed to bring up a record 14 adequate to allow us to determine whether we have jurisdiction over either one of 15 these appeals. In both appeals, Appellant s requested permission to submit truncated 16 records proper and we granted those re quests. Neither submitted record proper 17 contains a copy of the notice of appeal thatwas allegedly filed to trigger each appeal. 18 Furthermore, we have been unable to conf irm the filing of such notices by using the 194 Odyssey electronic-filing program, becausethis water-adjudication case does not 1 appear in the Odyssey data-base. We theref ore are not able to de termine, on the record 2 submitted by Appellants, whether notices of appeal were filed below and, if so, 3 whether those notices were filed in a timely manner. As disc ussed below, we do not 4 have jurisdiction over either appeal because neither appealhas been taken from a final, 5 appealable order. Therefore, we need not address the notice-of-appeal issue. However, 6 counsel for Appellants should be aware that when a limited record proper is filed, that 7 record proper must contain ev ery document that is necessary to allow us to confirm 8 our authority to consider the appeal. 9
{4} As Appellants are aware, having had a previous appeal dismissed on lack-of10 finality grounds, this Court’s jurisdicti on lies from final, appealable orders. See Kelly 11 Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison , 1992-NMSC-005, ¶ 14, 113 N.M. 231, 824 P.2d 1033. 12 Generally, an order or judgment is not cons idered final unless all issues of law and 13 fact have been determined and the case dis posed of by the district court to the fullest 14 extent possible. See id. In this case it is obvious that neither order disposes of all 15 issues of law and fact in the proceedings out of which the orders arose. As noted 16 above, the first order is a grant of partial summary judgment, a denial of Appellants’ 17 motion for summary judgment, and an order concerning scheduling of further 18 proceedings. This order obvious ly contemplates further proceedings in SS-97-104, the 195 stream-system issue presently being litigated by the parties. Similarly, the June 18, 1 2014, order simply denies Appellants’ moti on to stay further proceedings in SS-97- 2 104; denial of a stay does not in any way re solve all issues of law and fact that are 3 presented in a case. 4
{5} Appellants attempt to avoid the above analysis by relying on Rule 1-054(B)(2) 5 NMRA, and by arguing that the district court ha s fully and finally disposed of all their 6 claims to superior ownership rights to the water claimed by the United States. 7 Appellants argue that those allegedly superior rights arose as a result of fraud 8 committed by agents of the United States over 100 years ago; during the remainder 9 of this opinion we will refer to this argument as Appellants’ “superior-title” claim. As 10 a result of several orders entered by the di strict court, Appellants contend, their 11 superior-title claim has been rejected by th at court, with the most recent example of 12 that rejection being the February 17, 2014, order entered in Case No. 33,672. 13
{6} It is true that under Rule 1-054(B)(2), anorder that adjudicates all issues as to 14 a party is final and appealable insofar as that party is concerned. However, if any issue 15 remains to be determined with respect to th at party, the order w ill not be appealable. 16 See Cordova v. Cline , 2013-NMCA-083, ¶¶ 16-17, 308 P.3d 975 (order dismissing 17 plaintiff’s claims was final with respect to defendants who had not filed 18 counterclaims, but was not final as to defendants whose counterclaims remained 196 pending). We must therefore examine the two orders involved in these appeals to 1 determine whether as a result of these orders all issues pertai ning to Appellants have 2 been resolved. 3
{7} We point out first that this case is a stream-system adjudication, and Appellants 4 have presumably all filed clai ms to water rights that must be addressed. At this point 5 we have been given no information concerning the grounds for those claims; in other 6 words, we do not know whether some or al l of the Appellants (who have presented 7 their arguments on appeal as a group rather than as disparate individuals) have claims 8 to water rights that are not dependent on the superior-title claim. If that is the case, 9 then disposing of the superior-title claim w ould not resolve all of the claims that have 10 been put forth by Appellants in this adjudi cation. Therefore, even if an order did 11 finally and unfavorably determine the superio r-title claim as to Appellants, that order 12 would not be final and appealable until all of Appellants’ possible claims to water 13 rights have also been resolved. See Cordova

. 14
{8} More fundamentally, it does not appear th at the district court has fully and 15 finally resolved Appellants’ superior-title claim. We recognize that there is language 16 in the February 2014 order to the effectthat the superior-title claim has been 17 previously ruled upon and rejected by the district court. [No. 33,968 RP 4667-68] 18 Standing alone, that language implies that th e district court does not find the superior- 197 title claim persuasive. However, the February 2014 order merely denies Appellants’ 1 motion for summary judgment on the superior-title claim; it does not dismiss any 2 Appellant from the adjudication as a whole or from the SS-97-104 proceeding. 3 Therefore, this order is an interlocutory order that is subject to possible alteration in 4 future proceedings. See, e.g., Sims v. Sims , 1996-NMSC-078, ¶ 59, 122 N.M. 618, 5 930 P.2d 153 (“District courts have plenary power over their interlocutory orders and 6 may revise them . . . at any time prior to final judgment.” (citation omitted)). 7
{9} In fact, the June 2014 order denying Appellants’ request for a stay clarifies the 8 district court’s intent and strongly, if not conclusively, indicates the district court will 9 consider the superior-title issue, either during the SS-97-104 proceeding or during 10 expedited inter seproceedings that may be he ld on a representative basis. [No. 33,968 11 RP 5337] In addition to the district court’s me ntion of the above possibilities, we note 12 that the district court specifically headlin ed a section of the order as follows: “THE 13 PRE-1906 CLAIMANTS’ RIGHTS TO PR OJECT DIVERSION WORKS WILL BE 14 DETERMINED IN THIS ADJUDICATION.” It is difficult, if not impossible, to 15 interpret this statement in any other way ex cept as an expression of the fact that the 16 district court has yet to reso lve the superior-title issue unfavorably to Appellants, and 17 plans to address that issue in subsequent proceedings. We therefore cannot accept 188 Appellants’ contention that the district court has already decided the superior-title 1 issue adversely to Appellants. 2
{10} We find that the district court has not yet made a final decision disposing of all 3 claims raised in this action by any indivi dual Appellant or by Appellants as a whole. 4 Absent such a final decision, which would be tantamount to dismissing some or all of 5 the Appellants from this adjudication, Rule 1-054(B)(2) does not apply to this 6 situation. Since neither of the orders that are the bases of these appeals is final and 7 appealable, the motions to dismiss each appeal are granted and both appeals are 8 dismissed. Any further pleadings that may befiled in these conso lidated appeals shall 9 be filed in Case No. 33,672. 10
{11} IT IS SO ORDERED. 11

_______________________________________ 12 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 13 WE CONCUR: 14

15 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 16

17 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 18