Opinion
No. 35,372
04-20-2017
CHER BAILEY and KEVIN BAILEY, a married couple, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ROBERT BRAISER and LINDA BRAISER, a married couple, LEO J. ANDAVAZO, a single man, BETTY B. GARCIA, a single woman, JOHN DOE, an unidentified man, and SCHWAN'S HOME SERVICES INC., a Minnesota corporation registered to do business in New Mexico, Defendants-Appellees.
Law Offices of John Warner Widell John Warner Widell Santa Fe, NM for Appellants Lopez, Dietzel & Perkins PC William John Perkins Silver City, NM for Appellees Robert and Linda Braisier McCoy Leavitt Laskey, LLC H. Brook Laskey Albuquerque for Appellee Schwan's Home Service Inc. Leo J. Andavazo Mimbres, NM Pro Se Appellee Betty B. Garcia Mimbres, NM Pro Se Appellee
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 GRANT COUNTY
J. C. ROBINSON, District Judge Law Offices of John Warner Widell
John Warner Widell
Santa Fe, NM for Appellants Lopez, Dietzel & Perkins PC
William John Perkins Silver City, NM for Appellees Robert and Linda Braisier McCoy Leavitt Laskey, LLC
H. Brook Laskey
Albuquerque for Appellee Schwan's Home Service Inc. Leo J. Andavazo
Mimbres, NM Pro Se Appellee Betty B. Garcia
Mimbres, NM Pro Se Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VIGIL, Judge. {1} Cher and Kevin Bailey (Appellants) appealed from the district court's summary judgment order. This Court's first calendar notice proposed to summarily affirm. After Appellants filed a memorandum in opposition to the first calendar notice, it became apparent that there was no final order from which to appeal, as a motion for reconsideration was filed below after the notice of appeal, but within the time for filing a motion to reconsider. [1 MIO 12-13; RP 283, 293, 295] It did not appear from the record that the motion had been expressly ruled upon by the district court, so this Court's second calendar notice proposed to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order. Appellants filed a second memorandum in opposition essentially requesting that we defer acting on the appeal until the district court holds a hearing on their motion for reconsideration and enters a ruling. [2 MIO 2-3] It appears from the record below that no such hearing has occurred, nor is there any way to determine when a hearing will be scheduled and a final decision entered. For this reason, and those stated in the second calendar notice, we dismiss the appeal. Appellants can appeal again, if necessary, following entry of the district court's decision.
{2} IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ _________
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
WE CONCUR:
/s/ _________
M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge /s/ _________
HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge