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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 DANIEL CONEJO, AMME HOGAN, 2 SONNY LEEPER, DAVID QUINTANA, 3 JAMES REICH, JOHN RUSSO, KEVIN 4 SMITH, MARK WEINSTEIN, and a Class 5 of Others Similarly Situated, 6 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 7

v. No. 29,787 8 CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, MARTIN P. 9 CHAVEZ, Mayor, and REDFLEX 10 TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC., 11 Defendants-Appellees, 12 and 13 M. CHRISTINE MONTOYA, ROLAND M. 14 CHEEKU, BETTY DELGADO, SYLVIA 15 PEREZ, SUSAN L. ABRUMS, and all Others 16 Similarly Situated, 17 Intervenors-Appellees. 18 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 19 Richard J. Knowles, District Judge 20 Paul Livingston, 21 Placitas, NM 222 for Appellants 1

Robert J. Perry, City Attorney 2 Michael I. Garcia, Assistant City Attorney 3 Albuquerque, NM 4 for Appellees City of Albuquerque 5 Keleher & McLeod, P.A. 6 Charles A. Pharris 7 Thomas C. Bird 8 Ben Feuchter 9 Albuquerque, NM 10 for Appellee Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. 11 The Branch Law Firm 12 Turner W. Branch 13 Frank V. Balderrama 14 Paul D. Dominguez 15 Albuquerque, NM 16 for Intervenors-Appellees 17 MEMORANDUM OPINION 18 GARCIA, Judge. 19
{1} Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s order to dismiss their class action complaint 20 challenging the City of Albuquerque’s “Safe Traffic Operations Program” (STOP) 21 Ordinance. While this appeal was pending, this Court issued opinions in Titus v. City 22 of Albuquerque , 2011-NMCA-038, 149 N.M. 556, 252 P.3d 780, and Montoya v. City 233 of Albuquerque , No. 29,838, slip op. (N.M. Ct. App. May 18, 2011), in which the 1 plaintiffs raised similar challenges to the legality and constitutionality of the STOP 2 Ordinance. Both Opinions upheld the validityof the STOP Ordinance in favor of the 3 City of Albuquerque. Titus, 2011-NMCA-038, ¶ 1; Montoya , No. 29, 838, slip op. at 4 2. The New Mexico Supreme Court granted certiorari and reviewed both cases. Titus 5 v. City of Albuquerque , 2011-NMCERT-005, 150 N.M. 667, 265 P.3d 718; Montoya 6 v. City of Albuquerque , 2011-NMCERT-008, 268 P.3d 514. Upon this Court’s own 7 motion, we issued an order to hold this case in abeyance pending the decisions by the 8 Supreme Court in Titus and Montoya . The Supreme Court has now quashed certiorari 9 in both cases. Titus , 2013-NMCERT-003, ___ P.3d ___ (No. 32,941, Mar. 22, 2013), 10 and Montoya , 2013-NMCERT-003, ___ P.3d ___ (No. 33,070, Mar. 22, 2013). 11
{2} The district court dismissed the pres ent case before it reached the merits, 12 concluding that Plaintiffs were already represented as part of the certified class in 13 Montoya . On appeal, Plaintiffs challenge the procedure used by the district court and 14 do not argue that their interests are so mehow different than the class in the Montoya 15 case. We find nothing in the record that di stinguishes the merits of the present case 16 from those decided by this Court in Montoyaand Titus . The merits of Plaintiffs’ 17 arguments were either directly considered in Titusand Montoyaor are governed by 18 the issues raised and analysis in those cases. Nothing further remains to be decided 194 on the merits and any procedural error by the district court would now be moot. See 1 Glaser v. LeBus , 2012-NMSC-012, ¶ 12, 276 P.3d 959 (affirming the district court if 2 it is right for any reason); Maralex Res., Inc. v. Gilbreath , 2003-NMSC-023, ¶ 13, 134 3 N.M. 308, 76 P.3d 626 (“[A]n appellate court will affirm the district court if it is right 4 for any reason and if affirmance is not unf air to the appellant.” (internal quotation 5 marks and citation omitted)). We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal based 6 on our holdings in Titus, 2011-NMCA-038, ¶ 1 and Montoya , No. 29, 838, slip op. at 7 2. 8
{3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 9

___________________________________ 10 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 11 WE CONCUR: 12

____________________________ 13 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 14

____________________________ 15 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 16