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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 fr om the official paper ve rsion 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 COMPUTER ONE, INC., a 2 New Mexico Corporation; and 3 CAROLINE ROBERTS, Individually, 4 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 5

v. NO. 35,926 6 WILLIAM G. GILSTRAP and 7 DAYMON B. ELY, 8 Defendants-Appellees. 9 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 10 Victor S. Lopez, District Judge 11 The Perrin Law Firm 12 Doug Perrin 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellants 15 Guebert Bruckner, PC 16 Terry R. Guebert 17 Jonathan A. Garcia 18 Albuquerque, NM 19 for Appellee William G. Gilstrap 20 Dixon, Scholl, Carrillo, PA 212 Gerald G. Dixon 1 Robert J. Sanchez 2 Albuquerque, NM 3 for Appellee Daymon B. Ely 4 MEMORANDUM OPINION 5 GARCIA, Judge. 6
{1} In this legal malpractice action, Plaintiffs Computer One, Inc. and Caroline 7 R oberts appeal from the district court’s order dismissing their complaint against 8 Defendants William G. Gilstrap and Daymon B. Ely with prejudice. [DS 2; RP 82-86, 9 127] Despite numerous deficiencies in th e docketing statement, discussed in our 10 notice of proposed disposition, this Cour t proceeded to calendar the case and we 11 proposed to summarily affirm. Plaintiffs filed a timely memorandum in opposition to 12 the proposed disposition and a motion to amend the docketing statement, along with 13 a proposed amended docketing statement. Defendants filed a joint memorandum in 14 support of the proposed disposition; Defendant Gilstrap filed a response to Plaintiffs’ 15 motion for leave to file an amended docke ting statement; and Defendant Ely filed a 16 notice of joinder in Defendant Gilstrap’s response. Having considered each of these 17 filings, we conclude that the district court did not err in dismi ssing Plaintiffs’ legal 18 malpractice claims against Defendants, and we affirm. 19 Motion to Amend the Docketing Statement 203 {2} As a preliminary matter, we note that Plaintiffs have moved to amend their 1 original docketing statement “to list cases from other jurisdictions supporting [their] 2 position on tolling of limitations.” [MIO 6] Although our notice of proposed 3 disposition outlined numerous deficiencies in the docketing statement [CN 2-3], 4 Plaintiffs made no effort to address th ese concerns in their proposed amended 5 docketing statement. [ see Proposed Am. DS (attached to MIO)] The only change that 6 Plaintiffs seek to make from their orig inal docketing statement to their proposed 7 amended docketing statement is a list of out-of-jurisdiction case law. [MIO 6; 8
compare DS, with Proposed Am. DS] Notably, based on the “Statement of Issues 9 Presented on Appeal” in the proposed am ended docketing statement, no new issues 10 are being raised. [ Compare DS 3, with Proposed Am. DS 3] To the extent that 11 Plaintiffs wanted to include new authorities to support the issue raised in their original 12 docketing statement, it appears that they did so in their memorandum in opposition. 13 [MIO 2-3] Indeed, we note that the cases included in the proposed amended docketing 14 statement are the same cases include d in the memorandum in opposition. [ Compare 15 MIO 2-3, 5, with Proposed Am. DS 3]Therefore, ther e does not appear to be a basis 16 for amending the docketing statement, and we deny Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the 17 docketing statement. 18 Statute of Limitations 194 {3} In their docketing statement, Plaintiffs asked this Court to determine when the 1 statute of limitations for their legal malpr actice claims against Defendants started to 2 run. [DS 3] As discussed in our notice of proposed disposition, their central contention 3 appeared to be that a four-year statut e of limitations applied. [CN 4, 6-8] 4
{4} With respect to Plaintiff Roberts, we pr oposed to agree with the district court 5 that more than four years had elapsed from January 5, 2011 (the date that the district 6 court dismissed the claims by Roberts in the underlying lawsuit) to May 5, 2015 (the 7 date that Plaintiffs filed the present lega l malpractice action against Defendants). [CN 8 7] Therefore, we proposed to conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing 9 Roberts’ legal malpractice claims against Defendants based on the statute of 10 limitations. [CN 7] 11
{5} With respect to Plaintiff Computer One, we stated that the district court had 12 determined that more than four years had elapsed from April 19, 2011 (the date of the 13 verdict against Computer One) to May 5, 2015 (the date that Plaintiffs filed the 14 present legal malpractice action against De fendants). [CN 7] However, we noted that 15 in Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, Plaintiffs argued that the final judgment 16 against Computer One was entered on May 10, 2011, and it is from th is date that the 17 statute of limitations should have begun to run. [CN 7] We further noted that Plaintiffs 18 did not develop this issue on appeal, and we declined to develop Plaintiffs’ arguments 195 for them. [CN 7-8] Accordingly, we proposed to conclude that Plaintiffs did not 1 demonstrate that the district court e rred in dismissing Computer One’s legal 2 malpractice claims against Defendants based on the statute of limitations. [CN 8] 3
{6} We also noted that the district court had stricken Computer One’s complaint 4 under Rule LR2-116 NMRA (recompiled and amended as LR2-113, effective Dec 31, 5 2016). [CN 8] See Rule LR2-113(C) (“The court may strike, by court order on its own 6 motion, any papers filed by an unrepresentedcorporation.”). Thus, even if Plaintiffs 7 properly established that the four-year statute of limitations applied to Computer 8 One’s claims against Defendants and that Computer One’s complaint was timely filed 9 within the statute of limitations, Comput er One’s complaint was stricken, and we 10 proposed to affirm under the “right for any reason” doctrine. [CN 8-9] See Cordova 11 v. World Fin. Corp. of N.M. , 2009-NMSC-021, ¶ 18, 146 N.M. 256, 208 P.3d 901 12 (stating that “it is established law that our appellate courts will affi rm a district court’s 13 decision if it is right for any reason, so l ong as the circumstances do not make it unfair 14 to the appellant to affirm”). 15
{7} In their memorandum in opposition to our notice of proposed disposition, 16 Plaintiffs do not point out specific errors in fact or law. [ See generally MIO] See 17 Hennessy v. Duryea , 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our 18 courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party 196 opposing the proposed disposition to clearly pointout errors in fact or law.”). Instead, 1 they rely on out-of-state authority to s upport their argument for a common law tolling 2 rule, which they claim would toll “the statute of limitations for negligence . . . until 3 all appeals on the underlying claim[s] ar e exhausted or the litigation is finally 4 concluded.” [MIO 2-5] Moreove r, it does not appear that Pl aintiffs make any specific 5 arguments as to our notice of proposed dis position as it relates to Plaintiff Roberts. 6 [ See generally MIO] See State v. Johnson , 1988-NMCA-029, ¶ 8, 107 N.M. 356, 758 7 P.2d 306 (stating that when a case is deci ded on the summary cal endar, an issue is 8 deemed abandoned where a party fails to respond to the proposed disposition of the 9 issue). 10
{8} As to Plaintiff Computer One, they argue that the case actually ended on June 11 9, 2011, the deadline to appeal the fina l judgment that was entered on May 10, 2011. 12 [MIO 3] Plaintiffs further a ssert that “[t]he issue regard ing the lack of representation 13 of Computer One . . . was taken care of once Plaintiff filed her [m]otion for 14 [r]econsideration. . . . Logically, and in fairness to . . . Computer One, . . . once a 15 lawyer entered an appearance for Computer One, the defici ency in its representation 16 was removed and the case shoul d be permitted to go forwar d.” [MIO 5-6] In support 17 of this assertion, Plaintiffs re ly on Rule 1-001(A) NMRA. [MIO 6] See id. (defining 18 the scope of the rules of civ il procedure for the district c ourts and stating that “[t]hese 197 rules shall be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive 1 determination of every action”). Plainti ffs cite no authority for applying Rule 1- 2 001(A) in the manner they have pro posed, and we are not persuaded. See Lea Cty. 3 State Bank v. Markum Ranch P’ship , 2015-NMCA-026, ¶ 15, 344 P.3d 1089 4 (recognizing that were an appellant does not cite any authority that supports the 5 proposition asserted, “we presume that none exists under these circumstances”). 6
{9} In response to our notice of proposed disposition, Defendants filed a joint 7 memorandum in support, in which they ag ree with our proposed disposition for the 8 reasons contained therein, and they argue additional reasons to affirm the dismissal 9 of the legal malpractice claims against them. [MIS 6-12] We decline to address 10 Defendants’ additional arguments to support affirmance, but instead, rely on the 11 analysis contained in the calendar no tice that we have already issued. 12
{10} For the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we 13 affirm. 14
{11} IT IS SO ORDERED. 15

__________________ ______________ 16 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 17 WE CONCUR: 18

_______________________________ 19 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 208 _______________________________ 1 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 2