Court Opinion

ID: 9911687
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 17:06:41.368753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:52.338401
License: Public Domain

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in
the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the
citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-
generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of
Appeals.

           IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. A-1-CA-41298

MICHAEL NAJIBI,

       Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JASPER DUSTIN ATWATER,

       Defendant-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY
Manuel I. Arrieta, District Court Judge

Michael Najibi
Las Cruces, NM

Pro Se Appellant

Jasper Dustin Atwater
Las Cruces, NM

Pro Se Appellee

                                MEMORANDUM OPINION

YOHALEM, Judge.

{1}     Plaintiff, pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment and decision, ruling that the
parties had a binding agreement that Plaintiff would give his cat to Defendant.
Unpersuaded that Plaintiff’s docketing statement demonstrated error, we issued a
notice proposing to summarily affirm. Plaintiff has responded to our notice with a
memorandum in opposition. We remain unpersuaded that the district court erred and
affirm.

{2}    Our notice proposed to affirm on grounds that the record supported the existence
of a valid and binding agreement that Plaintiff would give up his rights to the cat and
Defendant would provide a home and care for the cat. [CN 3-4] Plaintiff’s response to
our notice contains a heartfelt plea for the return of the beloved cat, but does not
contain a showing of legal error. Plaintiff’s heartfelt plea does not demonstrate grounds
on which we can grant relief. See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M.
421, 759 P.2d 1003 (“A party responding to a summary calendar notice must come
forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact,” and the repetition of earlier
arguments does not fulfill this requirement.), superseded by statute on other grounds as
stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374.

{3}     Our notice also proposed to hold that while the district court’s oral comments
relative to Plaintiff’s ability to care for the cat given his age may not have been
appropriate, they do not constitute grounds for reversal because those comments were
not part of the district court’s written decision, they were unnecessary to support the
judgment, and the decision was adequately supported by other valid and appropriate
reasons and findings. [CN 4-5] Plaintiff’s response to our notice does not demonstrate
prejudice from the district court’s oral comments or otherwise demonstrate legal error.
See Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10.

{4}     Lastly, Plaintiff’s response asserts that Defendant made false statements, which
Plaintiff was not able to rebut. [MIO 2] Plaintiff, however, did not raise this matter in his
docketing statement, does not explain how he was unable to respond to the
unidentified, allegedly false statements, does not identify any particular legal support or
error, and does not show how his inability to respond affected the result. See Rule 12-
210(D)(2) NMRA (providing that the memorandum in opposition should not argue issues
not contained in the docketing statement unless good cause is shown); State v. Laney,
2003-NMCA-144, ¶¶ 32-33, 134 N.M. 648, 81 P.3d 591 (refusing to address arguments
raised on appeal, where the appellant cites no standard of review and points to no
specific error); In re Estate of Heeter, 1992-NMCA-032, ¶ 23, 113 N.M. 691, 831 P.2d
990 (“On appeal, error will not be corrected if it will not change the result.”); In re
Adoption of Doe, 1984-NMSC-024, ¶ 2, 100 N.M. 764, 676 P.2d 1329 (refusing to
address issues unsupported by cited authority).

{5}    Based on the foregoing, we hold that Plaintiff has not demonstrated grounds for
reversible error. Thus, for the reasons stated in this opinion and in our notice, we affirm
the district court’s judgment and decision.

{6}    IT IS SO ORDERED.

JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge

WE CONCUR:

JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Chief Judge

SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge