Opinion
NO. A-1-CA-36266
02-28-2018
BOKF, N.A., A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION, d/b/a BANK OF OKLAHOMA, AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST BY MERGER TO BANK OF OKLAHOMA, N.A., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROY A. METZGAR, YVONNE M. METZGAR, EQUIFIRST CORPORATION, Defendants, and MUKHTIAR KHALSA, Putative Intervenor-Appellant.
Richard M. Leverick Albuquerque, NM for Appellee Mukhtiar Khalsa Santa Cruz, NM Pro Se Appellant
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
Nan G. Nash, District Judge Richard M. Leverick
Albuquerque, NM for Appellee Mukhtiar Khalsa
Santa Cruz, NM Pro Se Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VANZI, Chief Judge. {1} Mukhtiar Khalsa appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to intervene following default judgment in favor of BOKF, N.A. (Plaintiff). [DS 2; RP 231, 244] This Court issued a notice proposing to summarily affirm. Khalsa has filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm. {2} Khalsa raises two primary contentions on appeal: (1) the district court improperly denied his motion to intervene, and (2) Plaintiff lacked standing to foreclose upon the subject property. [DS 3-4] This Court proposed to affirm on the grounds Khalsa failed to demonstrate how the district court erred in denying his motion to intervene, and Khalsa lacks standing to challenge the merits of the foreclosure judgment. [CN 2-3] {3} Khalsa argues in his memorandum in opposition the district court erred in denying his motion to intervene because Plaintiff failed to respond to his motion. [MIO 6] In support of this argument, Khalsa cites Rule 1-058(D) NMRA, which addresses examination of an order by counsel before it is signed, and Lujan v. City of Albuqueruqe, 2003-NMCA-104, ¶¶ 15-17, 134 N.M. 207, 75 P.3d 423, in which this Court discussed a previous version of Rule 1-007.1(D) NMRA and the proper manner in which to request entry of summary judgment and dismissal with prejudice based on a failure to timely respond. We note the applicable version of Rule 1-007.1(D) states, "Unless otherwise specifically provided in these rules, any written response. . . shall be filed within fifteen (15) days after service of the motion. If a party fails to file a response within the prescribed time period the court may rule with or without a hearing." Therefore, the lack of Plaintiff's response to the motion to intervene does not provide a basis for granting Khalsa's motion. Thus, Khalsa has not demonstrated the district court erred in denying his motion. {4} Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in our notice of proposed disposition and explained herein, we affirm.
{5} IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ _________
LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge
WE CONCUR:
/s/ _________
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge /s/ _________
STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge