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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 fr om 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

ARTHUR FIRSTENBERG, 2 Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, 3 v. No. 34,821 4 ROBIN LEITH, 5 Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, 6 and 7 RAPHAELA MONRIBOT, 8 Defendant. 9 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 10 Sarah M. Singleton, District Judge 11 Arthur Firstenberg, Pro Se 12 Santa Fe, NM 13 Appellant/Cross-Appellee 14
Stiff, Keith & Garcia, LLC 15 Ann L. Keith 16 Keith D. Drennan 172 Albuquerque, NM 1 for Appellee/Cross-Appellant 2 MEMORANDUM OPINION 3 HANISEE, Judge. 4
{1} Arthur Firstenberg (Firstenberg), a se lf-represented litigant, seeks to appeal 5 from the order granting summary judgment, entered on October 6, 2012, disposing of 6 his claims against Robin Leith (Leith) [RP Vol.25/5953]; an order granting partial 7 summary judgment to Firstenberg on Leith’s amended counterclaim, filed on February 8 21, 2015 [RP Vol.29/6853]; an or der denying Firstenberg’s motion for clarification, 9 filed May 1, 2015 [RP Vol.29/6898]; and “all intermediate orders and rulings 10 whatsoever concerning the claims and c ounterclaim between Plaintiff [Firstenberg] 11 and Defendant Leith.” [RP Vo l.29/6916] Leith seeks to appeal two orders: (1) the 12 order granting, in part, her motion for leave to file counterclaims against Firstenberg, 13 filed July 3, 2012 [RP Vol.20/4506], and (2) the order granting partial summary 14 judgment in favor of Firstenberg on her amended counterclaim, filed February 21, 15 2015 [RP Vol.29/6853]. [Leith DS 8] In our calendar notice, we proposed to dismiss 16 the appeal for lack of a final order. Firstenberg filed a memorandum in opposition, 17 which we have duly considered . Unpersuaded, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a 18 final order. 193 {2} “In civil cases, this Court has jurisdic tion over, among other things, ‘any final 1 order after entry of judgment whic h affects substantial rights[.]’ ” Khalsa v. Levinson , 2 1998-NMCA-110, ¶ 12, 125 N.M. 680, 964 P. 2d 844 (quoting NMSA 1978, § 39-3-2 3 (1966)). “Whether an order is a ‘final orde r’ within the meaning of the statute is a 4 jurisdictional question that an appellate c ourt is required to raise on its own motion.” 5 Id. Generally, an order or judgment is not cons idered final unless all issues of law and 6 fact have been determined and the case di sposed of by the trial court to the fullest 7 extent possible. Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison , 1992-NMSC-005, ¶ 14, 113 N.M. 8 231, 824 P.2d 1033. 9
{3} As discussed in our calendar notice, both parties acknowledged that this case 10 may not be ripe for appeal. [CN 3; see also RP Vol.29/6916 (Firstenberg’s notice of 11 appeal); Leith DS 8] Additionally, we noted th at after the district court entered its May 12 1, 2015 order, the district court held hear ings regarding the utility meters. [CN 3-4] 13 On September 4, 2015, the district court ente red an order stating that it had “requested 14 additional evidence regarding the current placement of utility lines on the parties’ 15 respective properties,” during the August 12, 2015 hearing. [CN 4] In light of the 16 foregoing, there appeared to be outstanding issues that need to be resolved by the 17 district court and we proposed to dismiss th e appeal for lack of a final order. [CN 4] 184 {4} Firstenberg filed a memorandum in oppos ition and asserts that the May 1, 2015 1 order is a final order, becau se Leith has not filed a motion for declaratory judgment 2 regarding the utility meters, despite the district court’s permission allowing her to do 3 so, as set forth in the February 21, 2015 order. [MIO 1, 3-4] However, he does not 4 point out specific errors in fact or law with the proposed disposition. See Hennessy v. 5 Duryea , 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have 6 repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing 7 the proposed disposition to clearly point outerrors in fact orlaw.”). Instead, he 8 confirms that the district court held an informal hearing on May 21, 2015 “at which 9 representatives of New Mexi co Gas Company and Public Service Company of New 10 Mexico [(PNM)] testified[, and t]he hear ing was continued to August 12, 2015.” [MIO 11 3] He also recognizes that the district c ourt held a status hearing and heard testimony 12 from another representative from PNM on A ugust 12, 2015, and the district court 13 issued a written order regarding the utility lines on September 4, 2015. [MIO 3-4] 14
{5} Despite these hearings and the Septembe r 4, 2015 order, in which the district 15 court noted that it had requested additiona l evidence regarding placement of the utility 16 lines, Firstenberg claims that the May 1, 2015 order is the last substantive order and 17 is a final, appealable order. [MIO 4] He asserts that, unless Leith files a motion for 18 declaratory judgment regarding the location of the utility meters, there are no 195 remaining issues to be decided by the di strict court. [MIO 1-2, 4] We are not 1 persuaded. 2
{6} The record reflects that th is issue was raised by Le ith in earlier pleadings, [ see, 3
e.g. , RP Vol.28/6677-83 (Leith’s petition for injunctive relief severing all utilities 4 connecting Firstenberg’s and Leith’s prope rties, filed on July 22, 2014)], and the 5 district court is still considering issues re lated to the placement of the utility meters. 6 Therefore, we conclude that the May 1, 2015 or der is not a final, appealable order; this 7 appeal is premature; and we decline Firs tenberg’s request to remand the case to the 8 district court. [MIO 5] See Thornton v. Gamble , 1984-NMCA-093, ¶ 15, 101 N.M. 9 764, 688 P.2d 1268 (“If we do not have jurisdiction, we must dismiss.”); see also 10 State v. Romero , 2014-NMCA-063, ¶¶ 15-17, 327 P.3d 525 (stating that if this Court 11 does not have jurisdiction, the prope r remedy is dismissal—not a remand). 12
{7} For the reasons stated in this opini on and in our notice of proposed summary 13 disposition, we dismiss for lack of a final order. 14
{8} IT IS SO ORDERED. 15

16 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 176 WE CONCUR: 1

2 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 3

4 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 5