This decision was not selected for publication inthe New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of non-precedential dispositions. Please also note that this electronic decision may contain computer-g enerated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Supreme Court. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 FRANCISCO VALENZUELA and 2 RACHEL VALENZUELA, 3 Plaintiffs-Appellees, 4 v. No. A-1-CA-37457 5 ALLAN D. SNYDER and 6 SHERRY L. SNYDER, 7 Defendants-Appellants. 8 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF ROOSEVELT COUNTY 9 David Peter Reeb Jr., District Judge 10 Gary C. Mitchell 11 Ruidoso, NM 12 for Appellees 13 Allan D. Snyder 14 Sherry L. Snyder 15 Greeley, CO 16 Pro Se Appellants 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION 18 VANZI, Judge. 192 {1} Defendants, who are self-represented, are appealing from a district court 1 judgment entering default against them and gr anting the relief requested in Plaintiffs’ 2 quiet title complaint. We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendants 3 have responded with a memorandum in opposition. We affirm. 4 {2} Defendants’ dismissal was based on the refusal to engage in discovery. [RP 5 577] Our Supreme Court has held that, even where a party violates a court order— 6 conduct which, in addition to a discovery violation, c onstitutes contempt of court— 7 “such discovery sanctions [i.e., dismissal with prejudice or default judgment] are to 8 be imposed only in extreme cases and only upon a clear showing of willfulness or bad 9 faith. That principle is well-established in this jurisdiction; it is universally recognized 10 in American jurisprudence; and it is fundamental to the constitutional right of due 11 process.” United Nuclear Corp. v. Gen. Atomic Co. , 1980-NMSC-094, ¶ 396, 96 N.M. 12 155, 629 P.2d 231; see Rule 1-037(B)(2)(d) NMRA (providing that, in addition to any 13 other discovery sanctions, a district court may treat the failure to co mply with an order 14 providing for the production of discovery as contempt of court). “A finding of 15 willfulness may be based upon either a willful, intentional, and bad faith attempt to 16 conceal evidence or gross indifference to discovery obligations.” Medina v. Found. 17 Reserve Ins. Co. , 1994-NMSC-016, ¶ 6, 117 N.M. 163, 870 P.2d 125. 183 {3} Here, Defendants refused to engage in discovery, and Plaintiffs requested a 1 default judgment as a sanction. [RP 577] The district court denied Plaintiffs’ request, 2 but ordered attorney fees and gave Defendants twenty-one days to answer discovery. 3 [RP 577] Almost two months later Plaintiffs again requested a default judgement. [RP 4 577] The district court found it was “obvious” that Defendants’ response to the motion 5 indicated that they will not comply withany order directing them to engage in 6 discovery. [RP 577] As such, the district c ourt determined that the willful, bad faith 7 threshold had been met. Because this case has the requisite evidence to support the 8 United Nuclear standard, our calendar notice proposed to affirm. 9 {4} In their memorandum in opposition, Defendants argue that they should not have 10 been required to engage in discovery, because the complaint should have been 11 dismissed. However, a party is not allowed to ignore orders of a court simply because 12 they believe the underlying acti on should have been dismissed—this is not a situation 13 where Defendants asserted that some info rmation should not have been disclosed, 14 based on privilege or othe r reasons. Instead, Defendants’ remedy was to request 15 dismissal, and then pursue interlocutory revi ew or subsequent direct appeal from the 16 denial of that order. Because Defendants have essentially conceded the United 17 Nuclear issue, they have not established that the district court erred. 18 {5} For the reasons set forth above, we affirm. 194 {6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 1

2 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 3 WE CONCUR: 4

5 KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge 6

7 MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge 8