Court Opinion

ID: 9905500
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 17:08:33.62697+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:38.780293
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citation of unpublished decisions.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-39321

LOUISE CISNEROS,

      Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CENTRAL NEW MEXICO COMMUNITY
COLLEGE BOARD OF REGENTS,

      Defendant-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
Lisa C. Ortega, District Court Judge

Gilpin Law Firm, LLC
Donald G. Gilpin
Christopher P. Machin
Albuquerque, NM

for Appellant

Stiff, Garcia & Associates, LLC
John S. Stiff
Edward F. Snow
Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee

                              DISPOSITIONAL ORDER

HENDERSON, Judge

THIS MATTER is on appeal from the district court’s order granting summary judgment
in favor of Defendant Central New Mexico Community College Board of Regents. We
note the following:
1.      Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Defendant discriminated against her and
retaliated against her in violation of the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA),
NMSA 1978, Section 28-1-1 to -15 (1969, as amended through 2023). Plaintiff alleged
that she fell twice at work and injured her ankles. Plaintiff requested, and was granted,
time off of work after her first fall. After her second fall, Plaintiff requested time off and
coverage for her nursing clinicals. While coverage for Plaintiff’s clinicals was provided
for the Thursday following this second fall, Defendant told Plaintiff that a substitute was
not available for her Friday nursing clinicals and Plaintiff “needed to be in clinical[s] to
provide the students what they needed.” As a result of this conversation, Plaintiff “felt
like [she] had no choice but to go to work.”

2.      We “presume[] that the district court is correct, and the burden is on the appellant
to clearly demonstrate that the district court erred.” Corona v. Corona, 2014-NMCA-071,
¶ 26, 329 P.3d 701. Additionally, we “ha[ve] no duty to review an argument that is not
adequately developed.” Id. ¶ 28. “To rule on an inadequately briefed issue, this Court
would have to develop the arguments itself, effectively performing the parties’ work for
them.” Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, 2013-NMSC-040, ¶ 70, 309 P.3d 53. “This
creates a strain on judicial resources and a substantial risk of error. It is of no benefit
either to the parties or to future litigants for this Court to promulgate case law based on
our own speculation rather than the parties’ carefully considered arguments.” Id.

3.      “Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Self v. United Parcel
Serv., Inc., 1998-NMSC-046, ¶ 6, 126 N.M. 396, 970 P.2d 582. “We review these legal
questions de novo.” Id. “On appeal from the grant of summary judgment, we ordinarily
review the whole record in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary
judgment to determine if there is any evidence that places a genuine issue of material
fact in dispute.” City of Albuquerque v. BPLW Architects & Eng’rs, Inc., 2009-NMCA-
081, ¶ 7, 146 N.M. 717, 213 P.3d 1146. “An issue of fact is ‘genuine’ if the evidence
before the court considering a motion for summary judgment would allow a hypothetical
fair-minded factfinder to return a verdict favorable to the non-movant on that particular
issue of fact.” Associated Home & RV Sales, Inc. v. Bank of Belen, 2013-NMCA-018, ¶
23, 294 P.3d 1276 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

4.     A movant for summary judgment “need only make a prima facie showing that
[they are] entitled to summary judgment. Upon the movant making a prima facie
showing, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to demonstrate the
existence of specific evidentiary facts which would require trial on the merits.” Roth v.
Thompson, 1992-NMSC-011, ¶ 17, 113 N.M. 331, 825 P.2d 1241 (internal citation
omitted). A party opposing summary judgment “may not simply argue that such
[evidentiary] facts [requiring a trial on the merits] might exist, nor may [the party] rest
upon the allegations of the complaint.” Dow v. Chilili Coop. Ass’n, 1986-NMSC-084, ¶
13, 105 N.M. 52, 728 P.2d 462.

5.   On appeal, Plaintiff asserts that the district court erred in granting summary
judgment because there was a factual dispute as to whether Plaintiff’s disability was
accommodated. Plaintiff likewise asserts that she was engaged in a protected activity
when she requested an accommodation and sought time off from work to recover from
her fall, and therefore the district court erred in granting summary judgment on her
retaliation claim.

6.     We have carefully reviewed the briefs, applicable law, and arguments made by
the parties. We have also reviewed the entire record.

7.      We conclude that Plaintiff has not met her burden to demonstrate that the district
court erred in granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. See Corona, 2014-
NMCA-071, ¶ 26. While Plaintiff asserts the facts set forth above demonstrate that she
met her burden to oppose summary judgment, she has not provided any argument or
analysis setting out how these facts are material to her causes of action at issue, nor
has she stated how these facts demonstrate a dispute of fact as to any element of any
cause of action. Thus, to rule on the merits, we would have to speculate about how or
why the evidence Plaintiff points to presents a jury question. It is not our role to develop
Plaintiff’s arguments for her and we will not guess at what her arguments are. See
Elane Photography, LLC, 2013-NMSC-040, ¶ 70. Because we have no duty to review
an argument that is inadequately developed, we decline to further consider Plaintiff’s
argument that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on her NMHRA
claims. See Headley v. Morgan Mgmt. Corp., 2005-NMCA-045, ¶ 15, 137 N.M. 339, 110
P.3d 1076.

8.      For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on
Plaintiff’s claims under the NMHRA.

9.     IT IS SO ORDERED.

SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge

WE CONCUR:

MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge

GERALD E. BACA, Judge