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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 INARA CEDRINS, 2 Plaintiff-Appellant, 3

v. No. 32,146 4 RAMESH KUMAR SHRESTHA, 5 JAMES AND SHARON PREWITT, 6 Defendants-Appellees. 7 Inara Cedrins 8 Chicago, IL 9 Pro Se Appellant 10 Ramesh Kumar Shrestha 11 Albuquerque, NM 12 Pro Se Appellees 13 MEMORANDUM OPINION 14 FRY, Judge. 15 Appellant Inara Cedrins, pro se, filed a docketing statement in this Court on 16 May 17, 2012 . On November 14, 2012, we issued a notice of proposed summary 17 disposition proposing to dismiss for lack of a final order. Appellant has responded 18 with a timely memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. We 192 remain unpersuaded that our initial proposed disposition was incorrect, and we 1 therefore dismiss this appeal. 2 DISCUSSION 3 Following a prior appeal in this case fro m a non-final order, we dismissed the 4 appeal and remanded the case to the distri ct court on March 1, 2011. [RP 180] The 5 district court entered judgment on the mandate on July 5, 2011. In the order, the court 6 stated that there was no final order entere d in the case, and it would set a hearing on 7 Appellant’s objections to the proposed order granting the motion to dismiss, denying 8 her motion to compel, and denying her mo tion for sanctions. [RP 218] The record 9 indicates that the district court held a hearing on Appellant’s motions on December 10 15, 2011. [RP 231] Based on our review of the record, there has been no order filed 11 following that hearing. Appellant filed her Notice of Appeal on March 30, 2012. [RP 12 269] 13 In our notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to dismiss this appeal 14 because there was no final order in the record, and Appellant stated that in her 15 docketing statement that no final order had been filed in the case. [DS numbered 14] 16 In response, Appellant states that the di strict court judge said that he was “not 17 persuaded” at the December 15, 2011, heari ng on her motion and stated that a prior 18 October 20, 2010, order dismissing the case stood. [MIO 1] However, the district 193 court’s oral statement that a prior ruling stood is not a written order, which is a 1 prerequisite to appeal. See Ramirez v. City of Santa Fe , 115 N.M. 417, 423, 852 P.2d 2 690, 696 (stating that a party may only appeal from a written order); Bouldin v. Bruce 3 M. Bernard, Inc ., 78 N.M. 188, 188-89, 429 P.2d 647, 647-48 (1967) (“[A]ppeals will 4 lie only from a formal written order or judgment signed by the judge and filed in the 5 case, or entered upon the reco rds of the court and signe d by the judge thereof.”). 6 Because there has been no written order entered following the December hearing on 7 Appellant’s motions, we are of the opinion that Appellant filed her notice of appeal 8 before there was a final order in this case. See Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison , 9 113 N.M. 231, 234-40, 824 P.2d 1033, 1036-42 ( 1992) (stating that this Court’s 10 jurisdiction lies from final, appealable orders); see also NMSA 1978, § 39-3-2 (1966). 11 For these reasons, we dismiss the appeal. Once Appe llant has obtained a final 12 written order from the district court, she is free to pursue her appeal in accordance 13 with our rules of appellate procedure. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED

. 15

16 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 17 WE CONCUR: 18

194 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 1

2 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 3