Court Opinion

ID: 9549321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:16:13.767775+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:08.546844
License: Public Domain

SUTIN, Judge (dissenting). I dissent. Defendants moved this Court to dismiss this appeal on the grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction because the Order filed in this case dismissed “the captioned matter” without prejudice. The court found “that the motions and defenses asserting improper venue are well taken and should be granted.” A hearing was held on the motion and the motion was denied. Defendants preserved this matter in their Answer Brief. To me, this jurisdictional issue is of primary importance and should be formally reviewed. The question for discussion is: Is a dismissal of the captioned matter without prejudice a final order? Ortega v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 91 N.M. 31, 569 P.2d 957 (Ct.App.1977) held that a dismissal without prejudice was not a final order and was not appealable.' I dissented under the peculiar circumstances of the Workmen’s Compensation Act to avoid the running of the limitation period. Nevertheless Ortega stands for the proposition that the Order filed in the instant case is not a final order and therefore not appealable. This Court has a duty to determine whether it has jurisdiction of an appeal; it will examine the record and if required, will sua sponte question its jurisdiction. Rice v. Gonzales, 79 N.M. 377, 444 P.2d 288 (1968). There can be no exercise of discretion. Johnson v. Johnson, 74 N.M. 567, 396 P.2d 181 (1964). This case should be remanded to the district court to allow the entry of an interlocutory order pursuant to § 39-3 — 4, N.M.S.A. 1978. The purpose of the interlocutory order is to solve intricate, complex problems that arise like that in the instant case. I believe plaintiff refused to do so, inadvertently. If this case is not remanded plaintiff may lose its opportunity to seek the relief claimed in the District Court of Santa Fe County.