Court Opinion

ID: 9611342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:55:23.43792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:13.257335
License: Public Domain

SUTIN, Judge (specially concurring). I specially concur. The reason Count II of plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed was failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. After extensive oral arguments, the district court summarily ruled, without reason or authority, that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed. It was not dismissed with prejudice. If any reasons had been stated, plaintiff would have a peremptory right to amend. Buhler v. Marrujo, 86 N.M. 399, 524 P.2d 1015 (Ct.App.1974). Count II was lost in the milieu of complex issues raised in three other counts. Defendants’ oral argument did not approach the result achieved. If plaintiff had submitted a memorandum brief to the court on Count II, the adverse ruling might have been avoided. Trial lawyers must remember that when complicated claims and a motion to dismiss are filed, the court often “shoots from the hip” to dispose of the case. A year is lost in delay and expenses of appeal mount. Thus it has been and thus it will always be. All that a complaint has to state is “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Section 21 — 1—l(8)(a), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl. Vol. 4). “All pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.” Rule 8(f). The function of pleadings under these rules is to give fair notice of the claim asserted so as to enable the adverse party to answer and prepare for trial. 2A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 8.13 (1975). “Notice pleading” mandated by Rule 8(a) requires a complaint to be construed liberally and fair notice of the nature of the action will withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff’s complaint adequately complied with “fair notice pleading.” I repeat once again: “The time has come to recognize that justice does not mean ‘hang in haste and try at leisure.’ It means to do justice; to see justice done. . . . ” Rice v. Gideon, 86 N.M. 560, 564, 525 P.2d 920, 924 (Ct.App.1974), Sutin, J. dissenting.