This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6
CARL LIMBERG, 7 Plaintiff-Appellant, 8

v. No. 30,515 9 WILLIAM J. EVERHART, PATRICIA 10 EVERHART, and THE HARTFORD 11 FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., 12 d/b/a THE HARTFORD, 13 Defendants-Appellees. 14

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LUNA COUNTY 15 Daniel Viramontes, District Judge 16 Sherman & Sherman 17 Frederick H. Sherman 18 Deming, NM 19 for Appellant 20 Law Offices of Eva K. Rappaport 21 Eva K. Rappaport 22 Albuquerque, NM 23 Riley & Shane, P.A. 24 Mark J. Riley 25 Albuquerque, NM 262 for Appellees 1

MEMORANDUM OPINION 2 SUTIN, Judge. 3 Plaintiff attempts to appeal from the district court’s order instructing him to sign 4 a release as part of a settlement. We i ssued a notice of proposed summary disposition, 5 proposing to dismiss for lack of a final, appealable order. Defendants filed a 6 memorandum in support of summary dismissal, and Plaintiff filed an objection to our 7 notice. We have given due considerati on to the parties’ re sponses. We remain 8 persuaded that Plaintiff attempts to app eal from a non-final order. Therefore, we 9 dismiss. 10 Our notice observed that this Court’s jurisdiction lies from final, appealable 11 orders. See Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison , 113 N.M. 231, 238, 824 P.2d 1033, 12 1040 (1992); see also Montoya v. Anaconda Mining Co. , 97 N.M. 1, 4, 635 P.2d 1323, 13 1326 (Ct. App. 1981) (observing that an appellate court will raise jurisdictional 14 questions on its own motion), overruled on other grounds as recognized by San Juan 15 1990-A., L.P. v. ElPaso Prod. Co. , 2002-NMCA-041, 132 N.M. 73, 43 P.3d 1083. 16 An order is final if all issues of law and fact necessary to be determined have been 173 determined and the case is disposed of by the district court to the fullest extent 1 possible. See Kelly Inn , 113 N.M. at 236, 824 P.2d at 1038. 2 In the current case, Plaintiff has attemp ted to appeal from the district court’s 3 order instructing Plaintiff to sign a releas e as part of the parties’ $30,000 settlement. 4 [RP 192-93] Our notice stated that this order clearly contemplates further action in 5 the case, and Plaintiff has not explained howthe order could be construed as final. 6 There is no indication that the parties have completed the settlement and that the 7 complaint was dismissed. We proposed to hold that without these resolute, final 8 actions that fully dispose of the lawsuit, ourjurisdiction is not properly exercised here. 9 See id. 10 In response to our notice, Plaintiff ar gues that the order should be treated as 11 final because the issues on appeal relate to that order, the district court’s order does 12 not reserve any decision, and the district court’s order states that it is final. [MIO 1-3] 13 This Court will decide on its own motion whether its jurisdiction is properly exercised 14 to review an order that may or may not be final. See Montoya , 97 N.M. at 4, 635 P.2d 15 at 1326. Our inquiry into the finality of an order does not focus on the issues raised 16 on appeal; it examines whether the proceedings below have been disposed of to the 17 fullest extent possible. See Kelly Inn , 113 N.M. at 236, 824 P.2d at 1038. This case 18 began with a complaint for property and personal injury damages, and statutory and 194 common law remedies. [RP 1-3] The parties reached a settlement agreement, then 1 disagreed as to the form and disputed i ndemnity provisions in a release. [RP 90-171] 2 The district court entered an order instru cting Plaintiff to sign the release. [RP 192] 3 There is nothing in the record indicating that the parties havesigned the settlement 4 and release, and there is no district court order dismissing the complaint. Again, this 5 case remains open and pending and further action is contemplated. 6 Plaintiff does not believe that he should have to sign the release and obtain a 7 dismissal before taking an appeal, anal ogizing our proposed disposition to requiring 8 a defendant to be executed in a death penalty case before an appeal could be taken. 9 [MIO 2] We are not persuade d. Death is irreversible on appeal and a district court’s 10 order instructing a party to sign an agreemen t is not. Also, Plaintiff could have sought 11 an interlocutory appeal or a writ of pr ohibition from the Supreme Court to obtain an 12 immediate appeal. In the ab sence of these kinds of pro cedural mechanisms, however, 13 Plaintiff seeks a direct appeal of a non-final order. 14 We remind Plaintiff that he may take an appeal from the rulings from which he 15 now seeks to appeal after the case is comp letely resolved below. We again caution 16 Plaintiff that if he wishes to pursue an app eal after entry of a final, appealable order, 17 he should file a docketing statement that mo re closely conforms to the requirements 18 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, namely Rule 12-208(D)(3), (4) NMRA. 195 For the reasons stated in our notice and in this opinion, we dismiss the appeal. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2

__________________________________ 3 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 4 WE CONCUR: 5

_________________________________ 6 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge 7

_________________________________ 8 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 9