IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1
BANI CHATTERJEE, 2 Petitioner-Appellant 3

v. NO. 29,473 4 TAYA KING, 5 Respondent-Appellee. 6

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 7 Daniel A. Sanchez, District Judge 8 Caren I. Friedman 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 N. Lynn Perls 11 Albuquerque, NM 12 for Appellant 13 Richard S. Lees 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 VIGIL, Judge. 18 Petitioner appeals from the district court’ s order of dismissal. We issued a 19 calendar notice proposing to dismiss the appealfor lack of a final order. Petitioner 202 filed a timely memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. 1 Unpersuaded, we dismiss this appeal. 2 DISCUSSION 3 The relevant facts are as follows. The district court filed its order of dismissal 4 on March 11, 2009. [RP 79-80] On March 24, 2009, Petitioner filed a motion to 5 reconsider the order of dismissal pursu ant to Rules 1-052(D) and 1-059(E) NMRA. 6 [Id. 84-90] Petitioner filed a notice of appeal from the order of dismissal on April 8, 7 2009. [Id. 116-17] The district court did notrule on Petitioner’s motion to reconsider 8 before the notice of appeal was filed. 9 Our calendar notice noted that Petitioner’s timely motion to reconsider extended 10 the time to file a notice of appeal until thirty days from the denial of the motion, 11 pursuant to Rule 12-201(D) NMRA. Mo tions filed under Rules 1-052(D) and 1- 12 059(E) are not deemed deni ed as a matter of law. See Albuquerque Redi-Mix, Inc. v. 13 Scottsdale Ins. Co. , 2007-NMSC-051, ¶ 13, 142 N.M. 527, 168 P.3d 99; Rule 1-054.1 14 NMRA (providing that the district court shall enter a judgment or order on a post15 judgment motion filed pursuant to Rules 1- 052 and 1-059 within sixty days after 16 submission). A recent Supreme Court case has held that, when a party files a motion 17 challenging the judgment, the judgment is notfinal until the district court has ruled 18 on the post-judgment motion. See Grygorwicz v. Trujillo , 2009-NMSC-009, ¶ 8, 145 193 N.M. 650, 203 P.3d 865 (explaining that, if a party makes a post-judgment motion 1 directed at the final judgment pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 39-1-1 (1978), the 2 time for filing a notice of appeal does not begi n to run until the district court expressly 3 disposes of that motion). As we read Albuquerque Redi-Mix andGrygorwicz , when 4 a motion challenging the district court’s de termination of the rights of the parties 5 pursuant to Rule 1-052(D) or 1-059(E) motion is pending in the district court, the 6 judgment or order entered by the district court remains non-final. See Dickens v. 7 Laurel Healthcare , LLC, 2009-NMCA-___, ___ N.M. ___, ___ P.3d ___ (No. 29,239, 8 June 18, 2009). Here , Petitioner filed a post-judgment motion that challenged the 9 district court order. Resolution of the post-judgment motion could alter, amend, or 10 moot the order that was ch allenged. Thus, our calendar notice proposed to hold that 11 the order is not final and that Petitioner’s appeal is premature. See id. 12 Petitioner argues that the order of dismissal was not rendered non-final by the 13 pending motion to reconsider. [MIO 3] Petiti oner further contends that the notice of 14 appeal divested the district court of jurisdiction to rule on the motion for 15 reconsideration and that she voluntarily waiv ed the motion to reconsider by filing the 16 notice of appeal. [Id. 3-6] In the alternative, Petitioner urges this Court to issue a 17 limited remand for the district court to rule on the motion to reconsider. [Id. 8] 184 We recently addressed similar arguments in Dickens , noting that “the holdings 1 of our Supreme Court in Albuquerque Redi-Mix andGrygorwicz establish that a Rule 2 1-059(E) motion be expressly disposed of before the time for filing the notice of 3 appeal begins to run.” Dickens , 2009-NMCA-___, ¶ 6. We further stated, “As we 4 read those cases, when a Rule 1-059(E) mo tion, or other motion that challenges the 5 district court’s determination of the rights of the parties, is pending in the district 6 court, the judgment or order entered by the district court remains non-final.” See 7 Dickens , 2009-NMCA-___, ¶ 6 (referring to Grygorwicz , 2009-NMSC-009, ¶ 8). 8 Because Petitioner’s motion to reconsider remained outstanding when the 9 notice of appeal was filed, the notice of app eal was filed before th ere was a final order 10 in this case. For these reasons, we dismi ss this appeal and remand this case to the 11 district court for further proceedings. On ce a final order has b een entered, Petitioner 12 may appeal in accordance with our rules of appellate procedure. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14

___________________________ 15 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 165 WE CONCUR: 1

______________________________________ 2 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 3

______________________________________ 4 ROBERT E. ROBLES, Judge 5