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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 MICHAEL P. ROMERO, d/b/a 2 SANGRE DE CRISTO MTN: 3 STONE & EXCAVATION, 4 Plaintiff-Appellee, 5

v. NO. 34,217 6 LINDA HONE, CHACHALACA, LLC, 7 and LOST DOG, LLC, 8 Defendants-Appellants. 9 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TAOS COUNTY 10 Jeff McElroy, District Judge 11 New Mexico Legal Center PC 12 Lee Boothby 13 Taos, NM 14 for Appellee 15 Richard S. Mackenzie 16 Santa Fe, NM 17 for Appellants 18 MEMORANDUM OPINION 192 WECHSLER, Judge. 1 {1} Appellants Linda Hone, Chachalaca, LLC , and Lost Dog, LLC (Defendants) 2 appeal from the district court’s order de nying Defendants’ motion to declare void the 3 order granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee Michael Romero, d/b/a/ 4 Sangre de Christo Mtn: Stone & Excavati on (Plaintiff). This Court issued a notice 5 proposing to affirm. Defendants have filed a memorandum in opposition, which we 6 duly considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm. 7 {2} In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition we noted that, in addressing 8 motions to dismiss for a void judgment pursuant to Rule 1-060(B) NMRA, our case 9 law does not appear to apply the due pr ocess considerations of Rule 1-004 NMRA 10 (service of process) to Rule 1-005 (servi ce of pleadings). [CN 3-4] Additionally, we 11 proposed to hold that any insufficiency inthe notice of hearing on the motion for 12 summary judgment did not violate Defendants’ due process rights because, “[i]n 13 considering a motion for summary judgment, the court may, but is not required to, 14 hold an oral hearing.” National Excess Ins. Co. v. Bingham , 1987-NMCA-109, ¶ 9, 15 106 N.M. 325, 742 P.2d 537. [CN 6] Defendants respond in their memorandum in 16 opposition by continuing to argue that summary judgment was not proper, because 17 Defendants were not properly served with the notice of hearing and that Defendants’ 18 due process rights were violated, resulting in a void judgment. [MIO 2-5] In support 193 of this contention, Defendants cite Barnett v. Cal M, Inc. 1968-NMSC-159, ¶ 4, 79 1 N.M. 553, 445 P.2d 974, in which the New Mexico Supreme Co urt held that a 2 summary judgment required reversal when it was granted before the time had expired 3 for the opposing party to respond. Defendant s fails to point out, however, that the 4 Court found without merit the plaintiff’s argument that he was prejudiced by lack of 5 sufficient notice of the hearing at whic h the motions for summary judgment were 6 heard. Id . ¶ 5. Morever, Defendants again fail to cite any New Mexico cases that apply 7 due process requirements of Rule 1-004 to service of subsequent pleadings under Rule 8 1-005. This Court will not consider propositions that are unsupported by citation to 9 authority. ITT Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t , 1998-NMCA-078, 10 ¶ 10, 125 N.M. 244, 959 P.2d 969. 11 {3} We further noted in our notice of proposeddisposition that, even if the Rule 1- 12 004 due process considerations applied to service of pleadings, Defendants 13 nonetheless did not show how notice of the summary judgment hearing was improper 14 under Rule 1-005, because the notice was served on Defendant Hone’s last known 15 address provided to the district court [RP Vol.4/927, Vol.1/262, Vol.5/1288], and she 16 failed to appropriately notify the district c ourt of her change of address in compliance 17 with Local Rule LR8-301 NMRA. Defendants respond by c ontending Defendant 18 Hone, as a self-represented litigant during portions of these proceedings, should be 194 afforded special attention and consideration. [MIO 3-4, 8-9] We have previously held 1 that “[a]lthough pro se pleadings are viewed with tolerance, a pro se litigant is held 2 to the same standard of conduct and compliance with court rules, procedures, and 3 orders as are members of the bar.” In re Camino Real Envtl. Ctr., Inc. , 2010-NMCA4 057, ¶ 21, 148 N.M. 776, 242 P.3d 343 (alterati on, internal quotation marks, and 5 citation omitted). To the extent Defendants refer to notice to parties who are not part 6 of this appeal [MIO 6], we d ecline to address those issues. See In re Mokiligon , 2005- 7 NMCA-021, ¶ 7, 137 N.M. 22, 106 P.3d 584 (“ [T]his Court will not consider and 8 counsel should not refer to matters not of record[.]” (internal quotation marks and 9 citation omitted)). We therefore conclude that Defendants have failed to point out any 10 actual errors in fact or in law with this Court’s notice. See Hennessy v. Duryea , 11 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P. 2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly 12 held that, in summary calendar cases, th e burden is on the party opposing the proposed 13 disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”). 14 {4} For the reasons stated above and in this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, 15 we affirm. 16 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 17

__________ ______________________ 18 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 195 WE CONCUR: 1

________________________________ 2 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 3

________________________________ 4 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 5