Court Opinion

ID: 9930770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 17:08:25.309637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:39:25.573672
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citation of unpublished decisions.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-41139

LAZARO LLANES,

       Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LARRY H. MILLER CASA CHRYSLER,

       Defendant-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
Daniel E. Ramczyk, District Court Judge

Lazaro Llanes
Albuquerque, NM

Pro Se Appellant

Snell & Wilmer LLP
Todd E. Rinner
Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

YOHALEM, Judge.

{1}    Plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, appeals the grant of summary judgment in
favor of Defendant. In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to
summarily affirm. Plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition, and Defendant filed a
memorandum in support, both of which we have duly considered. Remaining
unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s memorandum in opposition, we affirm.

{2}    In his memorandum in opposition, Plaintiff maintains that the district court erred
in granting summary judgment. [MIO 1-2] Plaintiff has failed, however, to assert any
new facts, law, or argument that persuade this Court that our notice of proposed
disposition was erroneous. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M.
754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases,
the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors
in fact or law.”); State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d
1003 (stating that “[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arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as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. We therefore refer
Plaintiff to our analysis contained therein.

{3}    Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and
herein, we affirm.

{4}   IT IS SO ORDERED.

JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge

WE CONCUR:

SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge

KATHERINE A. WRAY, Judge