To the contrary, New Mexico state courts appear to require strict compliance. See, e.g., Trujillo v. Goodwin, 138 N.M. 48, 116 P.3d 839, 841 (Ct. App. 2005) (rejecting the plaintiff's argument that the court "should overlook any technical deficiencies in the lack of personal service because the record reflects that [the defendant] had actual notice of the case and the date of the hearing[,]" and reversing the trial court's judgment because it "lacked power to issue a binding judgment"); see also High Country Landscapes, LLC v. McDonald, No. A-1-CA-37439, 2021 WL 288480, at *3 (N.M. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2021) (affirming dismissal for improper service of process because even assuming due process was satisfied by the defendant's actual or constructive knowledge of the complaint, the court "cannot overlook Defendant's failure to serve [the defendant] in compliance with our rules"). Indeed, in Martinez, Judge James O. Browning of the District of New Mexico granted the defendant's motion to quash service because Plaintiff failed to strictly comply with the rules governing service of process. 347 F. Supp. 3d at 692-93.

The Court of Appeals of New Mexico cases, while instructive, tend to interpret more strictly N.M.S.A. § 60-13-30. See, e.g., High Country Landscapes, LLC v. McDonald, No. A-1-CA-37439, 2021 WL 288480, at *5 (N.M. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2021)(stating that, "[g]iven this Court's strict application of the licensure requirements under CILA, we need not look beyond the plain language of these statutes"). See also Mosley v. Titus, 762 F. Supp. 2d 1298, 1332 (D.N.M. 2010)(Browning, J.)(concluding that while "certainly [the Court] may and will consider the Court of Appeal[s'] decision in making its determination, the Court is not bound by the Court of Appeal[s'] decision in the same way that it would be bound by a Supreme Court decision").