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 Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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
O’BRIEN & ASSOCIATES, INC., 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8

v. NO. 30,875 9 CARL KELLEY CONSTRUCTION, LTD. CO., 10 a New Mexico limited liability company, 11 Defendant-Appellant. 12

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SIERRA COUNTY 13 Edmund H. Kase III, District Judge 14
Atkinson, Thal & Baker, P.C. 15 Douglas A. Baker 16 Justin D. Rodriguez 17 Albuquerque, NM 18 for Appellee 19 J. Robert Beauvais, P.A. 20 J. Robert Beauvais 21 Ruidoso, NM 22 for Appellant 232 MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 KENNEDY, Judge. 2 This Court issued a calendar notice propos ing to dismiss Defendant’s appeal for 3 failure to file a timely notice of appeal. [C t. App. File, CN1] Defendant has filed a 4 memorandum in opposition that we have duly considered. [Ct. App. File, CN1] 5 Unpersuaded, however, we dismiss the appeal. 6 I. DISCUSSION 7 In the first calendar notice, we proposed to dismiss the appeal for failure to file 8 a timely notice of appeal based on the following facts and legal analysis. 9 Defendant appeals from the final j udgment entered on September 16, 2010. 10 [RP 6179] The notice of appeal was filed on November 3, 2010, more than thirty days 11 later. [RP 6298] On September 7, 2010, prior to the filing of the final judgment on 12 September 16, 2010, Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration). [RP 6173] 13 Because the motion was filed before the final judgment, it was necessarily denied by 14 the subsequent entry of the final judgment. See Stinson v. Berry , 1997-NMCA-076, 15 ¶ 8, 123 N.M. 482, 943 P.2d 129 (stating that “[w]here there has been no formal 16 expression concerning a motion, a ruling can be implied by entry of final judgment 17 or by entry of an order inconsistent with the granting of the relief sought”). 183 Once the final judgment was entered on September 16, 2010, all matters were 1 resolved. Therefore, we conclude that Defendant’s filing of the November 3, 2010 2 notice of appeal more than thirty days after the September 16, 2010 final judgment is 3 untimely, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of this appeal. 4 Defendant’s memorandum objects to dismissal, arguing that this Court has 5 created an “irrebuttable presumption” thatthe trial court’s final judgment implicitly 6 denied Defendant’s Rule 1-059(E) NMRA mo tion to reconsider. [MIO 1] Defendant 7 points out that a Rule 1-059(B) motion is timely filed within ten days “after the entry 8 of judgment[,]” arguing that this rule sets the “outside time” for the motion to be filed, 9 not the earliest time the motion can be filed. [MIO 2] Defendant also points out that 10 the “decision of the court” was actually filed on May 13, 2010, including findings and 11 conclusions that would be incorporated into a final judgment. [MIO 3] Defendant 12 argues that there is no legal or procedural basis to treat motions to reconsider filed 13 after the decision is entered and before the final judgment is filed any differently than 14 a motion for a new trial filed after the judgm ent. [MIO 5] Finally, Defendant argues 15 that it is constitutionally entitled to one appeal as of right and that this Court’s 16 proposed ruling deprives it of this right. We are not persuaded. 17 Defendant acknowledges that the May 13, 2010 district court decision in this 18 case clearly contemplates the filing of a final judgment. [MIO 3] As such, until the 194 final, written judgment was filed on September 16, 2010, none of the time periods 1 applicable to a party’s filing of a post-judgment motion begin to run. Similarly, the 2 appellate rules allow that certain post-judgment motions toll the time for filinga 3 notice of appeal

. SeeRule 12-201(D) NMRA. Amendments in 2006 to the Rules of 4 Civil Procedure regarding post-judgment mo tions have done away with the prior 5 “deemed denied” provisions relating to post-judgment motions filed pursuant to Rules 6 1-054.1 NMRA, 1-052(D) NMRA, 1-059(D) , and NMSA 1978, Section 39-1-1 7 (1953). See, e.g. , Albuquerque Redi-Mix, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co. , 8 2007-NMSC-051, ¶¶ 10-13, 142 N.M. 527, 168 P. 3d 99 (discussing that the rules of 9 civil procedure, regardingpost-judgment motions, were amended in 2006 and that 10 “[ b ] ecause there no longer is an automatic denial of post-judgment motions, the time 11 for filing notices of appeal will run ‘from th e entry of an order expressly disposing of 12 the motion ’”); see also Rule 12-201(D) (stating that the time for filing of notice of 13 appeal runs from date of “the entry of an order expressly disposing of the motion” 14 when there is no provision of automatic deni al of a motion under applicable statute or 15 a rule of court). 16 Albuquerque Redi-Mixclarifies that a Rule 1-059(E) motion, by its express 17 language, was never subject to th e deemed denied provisions. Id. ¶¶ 11-13. 18 Albuquerque Redi-Mixalso provides that a Rule 1-059(E) motion is a post-judgment 195 motion and that the timeliness deadlines regarding filing it and filing a notice of 1 appeal run from the filing of the final, appealable judgment. Id. ¶ 7 (stating that “a 2 motion for reconsideration filed within ten days of judgment is a motion to alter or 3 amend a judgment under Rule 1-059(E)”). T hus, to the extent Defendant considers 4 that the Rule 1-059(E) motion was deemed denied thirty days after its filing on 5 October 7, 2010 and, therefore, that the noti ce of appeal was timely filed within thirty 6 days of October 7, 2010, on November 3, 2010, we disagree. The concept of 7 “deemed denied” and the recent case law re garding it relates to post-judgment motions 8 not, as in this case, a pre-judgment motion th at is filed prior to the final judgment and, 9 therefore, necessarily denied by it. See, e.g. , Rule 12-201(D); cf. Grygorwicz v. 10 Trujillo , 2009-NMSC-009, ¶ 8, 145 N.M. 650, 203 P.3d 865 (holding that if a party 11 makes a post-judgment motion directed at the final judgment, the final judgment is 12 rendered non-final, and the time for filing anappeal does not begin to run until the 13 district court expressly disposes of the motion). 14 In this case, Defendant filed a pre-judgment motion on September 7, 2010, 15 asking the district court to reconsider its May 13, 2010 decision. The final judgment 16 entered thereafter, on September 16, 2010, isinconsistent with the relief sought in 17 Defendant’s motion. As such, the final judgment denied the motion. Stinson , 18 1997-NMCA-076, ¶ 8. Defendant ’s notice of appeal file d on November 3, 2010, more 196 than thirty days after September 16, 2010, is untimely, and this Court lacks 1 jurisdiction over the appeal. See, e.g. , State v. Lucero , 2001-NMSC-024, ¶ 9, 130 2 N.M. 676, 30 P.3d 365 (stating that “there is no corresponding constitutional right to 3 a motion for new trial. Like a motion to modify a sentence, a motion for new trial is 4 governed exclusively by our procedural rules, and it is therefore distinguishable from 5 a notice of appeal. . . . It is incumbent upon the parties to strictly adhere to our clearly 6 articulated rules of procedure. Proceduralrules do nothing if they do not establish 7 uniformity upon which all participants in the legal system can rely”) (alteration 8 omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quotingTrujillo v. Serrano , 117 N.M. 9 273, 278, 871 P.2d 369, 374 (1994)). 10 II. CONCLUSION 11 We dismiss the appeal for failure to file a timely notice of appeal. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13

_______________________________ 14 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 157 WE CONCUR: 1

___________________________ 2 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 3

___________________________ 4 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 5