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 Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official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 INARA CEDRINS, 7 Plaintiff-Appellant, 8

v. NO. 30,583 9 RICHARD STOOPS, RICHARD SHAPIRO, 10 and GEORGE ADELO, 11 Defendants-Appellees. 12

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 13 Ted Baca, District Judge 14 Inara Cedrins 15 Chicago, IL 16 Pro se Appellant 17 Maria Geer Garcia 18 Albuquerque, NM 19 for Appellee Richard Stoops 20 Richard Shapiro 21 Santa Fe, NM 22 Pro se Appellee 232 George Adelo 1 Santa Fe, NM 2 Pro se Appellee 3 MEMORANDUM OPINION 4 CASTILLO, Judge. 5 Plaintiff appeals three separate orders dismissing her claims against Defendants. 6 In this Court’s notice of proposed summarydisposition, we proposed to dismiss in 7 part and affirm in part. Plaintiff ha s responded with a memorandum in which she 8 concedes that dismissal of her appeal is appropriate as to her claims against 9 Defendants Shapiro and Adelo, and in which she opposes this Court’s proposed 10 affirmance of the district court’s order w ith respect to her claims against Defendant 11 Stoops. We have duly considered Plai ntiff’s arguments regarding our proposed 12 disposition of her appeal of the order re garding Defendant Stoops , and as we are not 13 persuaded by them, we affirm the district court’s order as to Defendant Stoops. We 14 dismiss the appeal as to Defendants Shapiro and Adelo for lack of a final order. 15 Plaintiff’s complaint asserted that during the course of Defendant Stoops’s 16 representation of Plaintiff’s ex-husband in an annulment proceeding, Defendant 17 Stoops was paid by a third party and engaged in various acti ons contrary to Plaintiff’s 18 interests. [RP 8, 10, 11, 12] In our notice of proposed su mmary disposition, we 19 proposed to affirm the district court’s order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint against 203 Defendant Stoops becau se the conduct alleged did not meet the stringent threshold 1 requirement that it be “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go 2 beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly 3 intolerable in a civilized community.” Trujillo v. Northern Rio Arriba Elec. Coop., 4 Inc. , 2002-NMSC-004, ¶¶ 25-26, 131 N.M. 607, 41 P.3d 333 (internal quotation 5 marks and citation omitted). 6 In Defendant’s memorandum in opposition, she continues to assert that her 7 claim against Defendant Stoops should have been permitted to go forward because his 8 actions left her without assets and caused extreme emotional distress. However, as we 9 stated in our notice of proposed summary disposition, Defendant Stoops was simply 10 acting on behalf of his client, which was in a position adversarial to Plaintiff, see 11 Garcia v. Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A. , 106 N.M. 757, 760-62, 750 12 P.2d 118, 121-23 (1988) (discussing the adversarial nature of litigation and declining 13 to impose on an attorney a duty to protect the interests of an opposing party), and a 14 divorce is often a traumatic and emotional experience, such that an intentional 15 infliction of emotional distress claim in th e context of a marriage must be limited only 16 to the most extreme circumstances, cf. Hakkila v. Hakkila , 112 N.M. 172, 176-79, 812 17 P.2d 1320, 1324-27 (Ct. App. 1991) (stating th at in an intentional infliction of 18 emotional distress suit between spouses, only the most extreme conduct will provide 194 a basis for the tort). Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing Plaintiff’s 1 claims against Defendant Stoops. 2 Therefore, for the reasons stated in this opinion and in our notice of proposed 3 summary disposition, we affirm the districtcourt’s order as to Defendant Stoops, and 4 dismiss as premature the appeal with re spect to Defendants Shapiro and Adelo. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6

________________________________ 7 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge 8 WE CONCUR: 9

__________________________________ 10 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 11

__________________________________ 12 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 13