Opinion
NO. 34,238
08-26-2015
JOE GRIEGO, ELOY VIGIL, RAMON MOLINA, SIN FRONTERAS ORGANIZING PROJECT, and HELP-NEW MEXICO, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE NEW MEXICO WORKERS' COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION, and DARIN CHILDERS, in his official capacity as Director of the Workers' Compensation Administration, Defendants-Appellees.
New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty Gail Evans Albuquerque, NM for Appellants Workers' Compensation Administration Rachel A. Bayless Albuquerque, NM Scott Fuqua Santa Fe, NM for Appellees
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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
Valerie Huling, District Judge
New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty
Gail Evans
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellants Workers' Compensation Administration
Rachel A. Bayless
Albuquerque, NM
Scott Fuqua
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellees
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ZAMORA, Judge. {1} Plaintiffs appeal from the district court's order denying a motion for reconsideration of the district court's order on Plaintiff's motion for supplemental injunctive relief. Based on our recent decision in Rodriguez v. Brand West Dairy, ___-NMCA-___, ___ P.3d ___ (Nos. 33,104 & 33,675, June 22, 2015), we issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to dismiss. Plaintiffs have filed a response, requesting that we hold this appeal in abeyance, explaining that they are opposing the petition for writ of certiorari filed in the New Mexico Supreme Court by Defendants in this case. [MIO 2] Plaintiffs appear to be concerned about the precedential value of our opinion in Rodriguez, stating that "[i]f and when certiorari is denied . . . they will have no objection to the summary dismissal." [MIO 2] However, their concern appears to be misplaced, given that our rules specifically provide that neither the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari or an order granting a petition suspends the precedential value of this Court's opinions. See Rule 12-405(C) NMRA ("A petition for a writ of certiorari filed pursuant to Rule 12-502 NMRA or a Supreme Court order granting the petition does not affect the precedential value of an opinion of the Court of Appeals, unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court."). Hence, we can perceive of no reason to hold this case in abeyance as Plaintiffs request. {2} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice, we dismiss this case as moot.
{3} IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ _________
M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
WE CONCUR:
/s/ _________
RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge
/s/ _________
TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge