IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 DANIEL GABINO MARTINEZ and 2 STEPHANY HALENE MARTINEZ, 3 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 4

v. NO. 29,040 5 DORDANE MASSERI and WELLS FARGO 6 BANK, 7 Defendants-Appellees. 8 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 9 James A. Hall, District Judge 10 Daniel Gabino Martinez 11 Stephany Halene Martinez 12 Santa Fe, NM 13 Pro Se Appellants 14 Moses, Dunn, Farmer & Tuthill PC 15 Alicia L. Gutierrez 16 Albuquerque, NM 17 for Appellees 18

MEMORANDUM OPINION 19 CASTILLO, Judge. 20 Daniel Gabino Martinez and Stephany Halene Martinez (Plaintiffs) appeal from 21 the district court’s order granting the motion for summary judgment in favor of 222 Dordane Masseri (Nasseri) and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Defendant s) and denying the 1 parties’ motions to strike. [RP 231] On appeal, Plaintiffs contend that the district 2 court erred in granting Defendants’ mo tion for summary judgment and in denying 3 their motion to strike. The calendar noti ce proposed summary affirmance. [Ct. App. 4 File, CN1] Plaintiffs have filed a memorandum in opposition. [C t. App. File, MIO] 5 Unpersuaded, we affirm. 6 DISCUSSION 7 Issues on Appeal: Plaintiffs contend that the district court erred in granting 8 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment for the following reasons: (1) the district 9 court applied the wrong standard of review b ecause material issues of fact remain for 10 trial [DS 6-8]; (2) the district court faile d to state the factual allegations relied upon 11 in granting summary judgment [DS 9-10]; (3) the district court erred in refusing to 12 grant Plaintiffs’ motion to strike on the ba sis that the “alleged judgment creditor has 13 no rights to execute and levy to enforce a foreign judgment absent registration and 14 domestication by a New Mexico district court” [DS 10]; (4) the district court erred in 15 not allowing Plaintiffs’ exhibits to be admitte d since they establish that material issues 16 of fact remain, making summary judgment in appropriate [DS 10]; and (5) absent the 17 undomesticated foreign judgment against Pl aintiffs, there is no evidence to warrant 18 summary judgment in favor of Defendants [D S 11]. We have considered Plaintiffs’ 193 contentions in the docketing statement and the memorandum. For the reasons 1 discussed below, we affirm the district c ourt’s order granting Defendants’ motion for 2 summary judgment and the order denying the motion strike. 3 1. The Correct Standard of Review (Issue 1). “An appeal from the grant of a 4 motion for summary judgment presents a que stion of law and is reviewed de novo.” 5 Montgomery v. Lomos Altos, Inc. , 2007-NMSC-002, ¶ 16, 141 N.M. 21, 150 P.3d 971. 6 “Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact 7 and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. “Where reasonable 8 minds will not differ as to an issue of material fact, the court may properly grant 9 summary judgment.” Id. As we discuss below, our revi ew of the record indicates that 10 no material issues of fact remain requiring a trial and Defendants are entitled to 11 summary judgment as a matter of law. Theref ore, we hold that the district court did 12 not apply the wrong standard of review in the order granting summary judgment to 13 Defendants. 14 2. No Material Factual Issues Remain and Defendants Are Entitled to 15 Summary Judgment as a Matter of Law (Issues 2, 4, 5). The motion for summary 16 judgment against Plaintiffs was granted based on the following undisputed facts: (1) 17 Plaintiffs opened jointly owned bank account s at Defendant bank [RP 25, ¶¶ 3-6]; (2) 18 as of February 7, 2008, Plaintiffs’ bank accounts held $44,929.45 [RP 26, ¶ 11]; (3) 194 on February 7, 2008, Defendant bank was served with a writ of garnishment issued 1 by the United States District Court for the di strict of New Mexico against the property 2 of Plaintiff Daniel Gabino Martinez [RP 25, ¶ 7, Exhibit A, RP 33]; (4) Defendant 3 bank filed an answer to the writ informing th e federal district court that it held the 4 funds in Plaintiffs’ bank accounts [RP 26, ¶ 12]; (5) Plaintiffs did not respond to the 5 writ of garnishment, object to it, or file a claim of exemption [RP 26, ¶ 13, Exhibit B, 6 RP 36]; (6) the order of garnishment was entered on March 6, 2008 [RP 27, ¶ 14, 7 Exhibit C, RP 43]; (7) the order of garnishment ordered Defendant bank to pay the 8 funds in Plaintiffs’ bank accounts to the United States [RP 44], and Defendant bank 9 did so [RP 27, ¶ 15]. Plaintiffs then f iled their complaint for money due against 10 Defendants, asserting that they were wrongf ully denied the funds in the bank accounts 11 [RP 27, ¶¶ 15-16]. 12 Plaintiffs’ complaint, their response tothe motion for summary judgment, and 13 their docketing statement contend that De fendants, the bank manager and the bank, 14 wrongfully refused them possession and enjoyment of the funds in their bank accounts 15 held at Defendant bank. [RP 1, RP 74, ¶ 4, DS] Although not denying the existence 16 or validity of the federal order of garnishmen t against Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs contend that 17 Defendants have failed to properly execute and levy to enforce the order of 18 garnishment, which was issued in federal district court and is therefore a foreign 195 judgment that is required to be domesticated in New Mexico district court in order to 1 be enforced or levied upon. [RP 76-78, ¶¶ 10-15] In addition, on appeal Plaintiffs 2 contend that the district court erred in failing to enumerate the facts relied upon in the 3 order granting summary judgment and erred in refusing to find that Plaintiffs’ exhibits 4 create material issues of fact. 5 First, the district court did not err infailing to enumerate the facts relied upon 6 in granting the motion for summary judgment. As we discussed in the calendar 7 notice, the facts relied upon consist of the undisputed facts enumerated in Defendants’ 8 motion for summary judgment as entitling Defendants to summary judgment, with 9 which the district court agreed in granting the motion. Second, Plaintiffs’ exhibits, 10 consisting of Plaintiffs’ requests for lists of foreign judgments against them and the 11 State district court clerks’ negative respons es thereto do not create a material issue of 12 fact with regard to the undisputed existen ce of an order of garnishment issued by the 13 United States District Court for the District of New Mexico based on a judgment in 14 favor of the United States against Plaintiffs in United States v. Martinez , Case No. 15 6:06-cv-01146-PJK-LFG, served upon De fendant bank and Defendant branch 16 manager, and requiring De fendant bank to comply therewith by turning over 17 Plaintiffs’ funds to the United States. 18 Third, while Plaintiffs rely on Defendant s’ alleged failure tocomply with the 196 domestication of foreign judgments statute, citing NMSA 1978, Section 39-4A-3 1 (1994), they ignore New Mexico’s law requiri ng New Mexico’s courts to take judicial 2 notice of the judicial proceedings of the United States and New Mexico’s garnishment 3 statutes. Rule 1-044(A)(3) NMRA requires th e courts of New Mexico to take judicial 4 notice of the public and private official acts of the judicial departments of the United 5 States. In this case, the judgment against Plaintiff in Martinez , the writ of 6 garnishment, and the order of garnishment relating thereto, which are attached to 7 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as Exhibits A and C [RP 33, 43], are 8 official acts of the judicial departments of the United States, of which the first judicial 9 district court of New Mexico is require d to take judicial notice. As such, 10 domestication of the federal judgment against Plaintiffs in Martinezis unnecessary as 11 a matter of law. To the extent that in the memorandum Plaintiffs continue to raise the 12 same arguments to dispute that this legal analysis is correct, we are not persuaded. 13 See, e.g. , Hennessy v. Duryea , 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 14 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on 15 the party opposing the proposed disposition to cl early point out errors in fact or law.”). 16 Moreover, as Defendants point out, in focusing on Defendants’ alleged failure 17 to domesticate the federal judgment, Plai ntiffs fail to recognize that New Mexico 18 garnishment law provides the method for co llecting on federal judgments and makes 197 it unlawful for the garnishee, in this case De fendants, not to comply with the order of 1 garnishment. SeeNMSA 1978, § 35-12-3 (1969). Pursuant to New Mexico 2 garnishment law, in holding assets belong ing to a judgment debtor, in this case 3 Plaintiffs, Defendants were re quired to comply with the order of garnishment and pay 4 the Plaintiffs’ funds in the bank accounts to the United States. As a matter of law, 5 Defendants are not liable to Plaintiffs for doing so in accordance w ith the law. To the 6 extent that Plaintiffs continue to deny the validity of these legal principles in the 7 memorandum, we are not persuaded. 8 Finally, while Plaintiffs continue, inco rrectly, to contend that the judgment in 9 Martinez was required to be domesticated to be enforced, as Defendants point out, 10 Plaintiffs do not otherwise contest the exis tence or validity of the federal judgment, 11 writ, and order of garnishment. [RP 59] Exhibit B of the motion for summary 12 judgment, which is the docket sheet for Martinez , indicates that Plaintiffs did not 13 object to the writ of garnishment or claim any exemption to it and that the order of 14 garnishment was entered upon the writ. [RP 59, Exhibit B, RP 36] 15 As such, we remain persuaded that there are no issues of material fact requiring 16 a trial and that Defendants are entitled to j udgment as a matter of law. We therefore 17 affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants. 18 3. The District Court Did Not Err in Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike 198 (Issue 3). Plaintiffs also contend that the district court erred in denying their motion 1 to strike. [RP 164-71] Plaintiffs moved tostrike Defendants’ affirmative defense to 2 the complaint, which states that Plainti ffs’ funds in the bank accounts were lawfully 3 transferred to the United States pursuant tothe writ and order of garnishment entered 4 upon the federal judgment in Martinez . [RP 10, ¶ 14] In their motion to strike, 5 Plaintiffs argued that Defendants failed toproperly enforce a foreign judgment by 6 domesticating it and, therefore, Defendants had no right to levy upon the order of 7 garnishment. [RP 164-71] These are the samearguments that Plaintiffs raise in the 8 response to the motion for summary judgment. [RP 73-79] De fendants’ response to 9 the motion to strike makes the same points that Defendants make in their motion for 10 summary judgment and their reply to Plai ntiffs’ response to the motion for summary 11 judgment. [RP 172-75] We have already discussed why Plaintiffs’ contentions do not 12 entitle Plaintiffs to relief as a matter of law. 13 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s decision to deny Plaintiffs’ motion 14 to strike. 15 CONCLUSION 16 We affirm the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for summary 17 judgment and denying Plaintiffs’ motion to strike. [RP 231] 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 199 ________________________________ 1 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge 2 WE CONCUR: 3

________________________________ 4 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 5

________________________________ 6 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 7