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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 DISCOVER BANK, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. NO. 34,589 4 MAURIZIO DIMAURO, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 C. Shannon Bacon, District Judge 8 Guglielmo & Associates 9 Elizabeth V. Friedenstein 10 Albuquerque, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Maurizio DiMauro 13 Albuquerque, NM 14 Pro Se Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 VIGIL, Chief Judge. 17 {1} Defendant appeals from the district court’s granting of summary judgment in 18 favor of Plaintiff. This Court issued a calendar notice proposing summary affirmance. 192 Defendant has filed a memo randum in opposition to this Court’s notice of proposed 1 disposition, which we have duly cons idered. Unpersuaded, we affirm. 2 {2} In our calendar notice, we proposed to hold that Plaintiff presented sufficient 3 evidence to make a prima facie showing that Defendant owed Plaintiff money and that 4 the burden then shifted to Defendant todemonstrate the existence of specific 5 evidentiary facts that would require trial on the merits. [CN 5] See Roth v. Thompson , 6 1992-NMSC-011, ¶ 17, 113 N.M. 331, 825 P.2d 1241. Specifically, we noted that 7 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment relied on an affidavit asserting that 8 Defendant has “not paid th e amounts due and owing to [Plaintiff] on the account[,]” 9 as well as on printouts of Defendant’s credit card billing statements showing 10 Defendant’s name and addre ss, and documentation that Defendant previously made 11 payments on the account, both electronically and by personal check, prior to 12 defaulting. [CN 4] 13 {3} Defendant continues to assert that Plaintiff’s evidence points to “an impossible 14 sequence of events . . . by virtue of the dates borne on those documents[.]” [MIO 1] 15 Defendant’s argument is that the 2011 Cardmember Agreement presented by Plaintiff 16 belies its contention that he was issued a card in 2008. [RP 222] We addressed this 17 argument in detail in our calendar notice [CN 5-6], and we are not convinced that we 18 erred. To the point, we noted that Plaintiff submitted the 2011 Cardmember 19 Agreement as evidence of th e agreement in place at the time the account was charged 203 off, not at the time of account creation. [C N 6] Therefore, we remain unconvinced that 1 the documents contradict each other, desp ite Defendant’s conti nued argument in favor 2 of such a reading. 3 {4} In our calendar notice, we proposed to c onclude that Defendant had not met his 4 burden in demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. [CN 5-7] 5 See Schwartzman v. Schwartzman Packing Co. , 1983-NMSC-010, ¶ 22, 99 N.M. 436, 6 659 P.2d 888 (“A party opposing a motion for summary judgment must make an 7 affirmative showing by affidavit or other admissible evidence thatthere is a genuine 8 issue of material fact once a prima facie showing is madeby the movant.”). Defendant 9 did not file an affidavit or submit any evidence, aside from the argument that 10 Plaintiff’s evidence was self-contradictory, to otherwise demonstrate a genuine issue 11 of fact. [CN 5] Therefore, given our analysis of Defendant’s “impossibility” argument 12 as laid out above and in our calendar noti ce, we are not convinced that we erred in 13 determining that Defendant failed to meet his burden. 14 {5} Defendant also continues to argue thatPlaintiff’s alleged non-compliance with 15 the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1693 (2006), bars 16 Plaintiff from recovering in this case. [MIO4-5] However, we noted in our calendar 17 notice that Defendant had not provided this Court with authority to support a theory 18 that non-compliance with TILA by a creditor bars collection on credit card debt after 19 six years have passed since the alleged violation. [C N 8] In his memorandum of 204 opposition, Defendant relies on general citations to TILA and to cases that do not 1 address this specific point of law. [MIO3-4] “[C]ases are not authority for 2 propositions not considered.” Fernandez v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz. , 1993-NMSC3 035, ¶ 15, 115 N.M. 622, 857 P. 2d 22 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 4 Where a party cites no authority to support an argument, we may assume no such 5 authority exists. In re Adoption of Doe , 1984-NMSC-024, ¶ 2, 100 N.M. 764, 676 6 P.2d 1329. Thus, it does not appear that Defendant has satisfied his burden on appeal. 7 See Corona v. Corona , 2014-NMCA-071, ¶ 26, 329 P.3d 701 (“The appellate court 8 presumes that the district court is correct , and the burden is on th e appellant to clearly 9 demonstrate that the district court erred. ”). Consequently, we are not convinced that 10 we erred in determining that Defendant’s legally insufficient argument does not defeat 11 summary judgment. [CN 8 (citingFidelity Nat’l Bank v. Tommy L.Goff, Inc. , 1978- 12 NMSC-074, ¶ 8, 92 N.M. 106, 583 P.2d 470)] 13 {6} Finally, Defendant continues to argue th at he did not have an opportunity to 14 respond to Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion because the district court decided the 15 motion without a hearing. [MIO 5] We stated in our calendar notice that a review of 16 the record proper suggests that Defendant had sufficient opportunity to respond, and 17 indeed, did respond by filing a response to Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. [CN 18 9] Defendant now states that “[w]hileit is true that [he] was literally allowed to submit 195 written responses, there are three things wh ich indicate that my written responses were 1 ignored[.]” [MIO 5] 2 {7} Defendant first alleges that his written response to Plaintiff’s summary 3 judgment motion was ignored because the district court made a decision that went 4 contrary to his position. [MIO 5] However, Defendant ha s not provided us with any 5 authority to support his argument that simplybecause the district court ruled against 6 him he did not have an adequate opportunity to respond or that his response was 7 ignored. Where a party cites no authority to support an argument, we may assume no 8 such authority exists. In re Adoption of Doe , 1984-NMSC-024, ¶ 2. Secondly, 9 Defendant claims that the f act that the district court cancelled a previously scheduled 10 hearing “suggests lack of professional behavior and . . . lack of proper judgment on 11 the issues of the case[.]” [MIO 5] As wenoted in our calendar notice, “[d]isposition 12 of a motion for summary judgment, without oral argument, is appropriate when the 13 opposing party has had an adequate opportunity to respond to movant’s arguments 14 through the briefing process.” Nat’l Excess Ins. Co. v. Bingham , 1987-NMCA-109, 15 ¶ 9,106 N.M. 325, 742 P.2d 537. [CN 9] Thus , without more, we are not convinced 16 that the district court acted inappropriately . Lastly, Defendant argues that the district 17 court’s “posture and disposition suggested bias for the [P]laintiff[.]” [MIO 5] We note, 18 however, that this argument was not raised in Defendant ’s docketing statement, and 19 Defendant did not move to amend the doc keting statement to add this issue. See Rule 206 12-208(F) NMRA (permitting the amendment of the docketing statement based upon 1 good cause shown); State v. Rael , 1983-NMCA-081, ¶¶ 15-16, 100 N.M. 193, 668 2 P.2d 309 (setting out requirements for a successful motion to amend the docketing 3 statement). To the extent th at we might construe the addition of this argument as a 4 motion to amend the docketing stat ement, Defendant has failed to 5 demonstrate—through his one sentence reference to bias—that he meets the 6 requirements for granting a motion to amend. Therefore, we are not convinced that we 7 were incorrect in determining that the district court did not err by ruling on the 8 summary judgment issue without first conducting a hearing. 9 {8} For these reasons, and those in our calendar notice, we affirm. 10 {9} IT IS SO ORDERED. 11

__________________________________ 12 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge 13 WE CONCUR: 14

_________________________________ 15 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 16

_________________________________ 17 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 18