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 Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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

v. NO. 30,178 9 JAMES and SHARON PREWITT, and 10 RAMESH KUMAR SHRESTHA, 11 Defendants-Appellees. 12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 13 Beatrice J. Brickhouse, District Judge 14 Inara Cedrins 15 Chicago, IL 16 Pro Se Appellant 17 James and Sharon Prewitt 18 Albuquerque, NM 19 Pro Se Appellees 20 MEMORANDUM OPINION 21 FRY, Chief Judge. 22 Plaintiff Inara Cedrins, pro se, appeals th e district court’s order dismissing her 23 complaint against Defendants James Prew itt and Ramesh Kumar Shrestha. This 242 Court filed a calendar notice on March 22, 2010, proposing to dismiss Plaintiff’s 1 appeal as premature. After not receiving a response to our calendar notice, this Court 2 dismissed the appeal on May 6, 2010. On May 14, 2010, Plaintiff filed a 3 memorandum opposing summary dismissal in which she indicated that she did not 4 receive the calendar notice. We filed an order on June 7, 2010, inwhich we construed 5 the memorandum as a motion for rehearing. We attached a copy of the calendar 6 notice proposing summary dismissal and allo wed Plaintiff twenty days to file a 7 memorandum in response. Plaintiff f iled a memorandum in response on June 14, 8 2010. After due consideration, we are not persuaded that our proposed disposition 9 was incorrect. We theref ore dismiss this appeal. 10 DISCUSSION 11 In our calendar notice, we noted that the di strict court filed its order of dismissal 12 on January 13, 2010. [RP 116-19] On January 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed a notice of 13 appeal and an objection to the memorandum opinion and order. [RP 120, 124-27] As 14 Plaintiff’s objection challenged the judgment, we proposed to construe it as a timely 15 motion for reconsideration. See Rule 1-059(E) NMRA (providing that “[a] motion to 16 alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than ten (10) days after entry of 17 judgment”). Taking into consideration the holiday and three-day mailing rule, see 18 Rule 1-006 NMRA, we noted that it appearedthat Plaintiff had filed a timely motion 193 for reconsideration but that there was no indication in the record that the district court 1 had ruled on it. 2 As our calendar notice observed, Plaintiff’s timely motion extended the time to 3 file a notice of appeal until thirty days fro m the denial of the motion, pursuant to Rule 4 12-201(D) NMRA. Motions filed under Rule 1-059(E) are not deemed denied as a 5 matter of law. See Albuquerque Redi-Mix, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co. , 2007-NMSC6 051, ¶ 13, 142 N.M. 527, 168 P.3d 99 (construing a motion to reconsider as a Rule 1- 7 059(E) motion that was not subject to automatic denial); see also Rule 1-054.1 NMRA 8 (stating that the district court shall enter a judgment or order on a post-judgment 9 motion filed pursuant to Rule 1-059 within sixty days after submission). The New 10 Mexico Supreme Court has held that wh en a party files a motion challenging the 11 judgment, the judgment is not final until the district court has ruled on the post12 judgment motion. See Grygorwicz v. Trujillo , 2009-NMSC-009, ¶ 8, 145 N.M. 650, 13 203 P.3d 865. Here, Plaintiff filed a post-j udgment motion that challenged the district 14 court’s order of dismissal. Because resolution of the post-judgment motion could 15 alter, amend, or moot the order that wa s challenged, our calendar notice proposed to 16 hold that the order of dismissal was not final and that Plaintiff’s appeal was premature. 17 Plaintiff’s memorandum in opposition to the calendar notice does not inform 18 this Court how its proposed disposition wa s wrong. Plaintiff makes no argument that 194 she is appealing from a final order. We therefore remain persuaded that our proposed 1 disposition was correct. Because Plaintiff file d her notice of appeal before the district 2 court could rule on her motion for reconsid eration, the notice of appeal was filed 3 before there was a final order in this case. For these reasons, we dismiss this appeal 4 to allow the district court to rule on Plaintiff’s objection. We further note that if the 5 district court decides to deny the motion fo r reconsideration, it would be helpful to 6 this Court on appeal if the court explains its reasoning for rejecting Plaintiff’s 7 objections. Once a final order has been en tered, Petitioner may appeal in accordance 8 with our rules of appellate procedure. 9 CONCLUSION 10 We therefore summarily dismiss this appeal. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

13 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge 14 WE CONCUR: 15

16 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge 175 1 ROBERT E. ROBLES, Judge 2