Llanes v. Chrysler

Full title: LAZARO LLANES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LARRY H. MILLER CASA CHRYSLER…

Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Date published: Feb 1, 2024

No. A-1-CA-41139 (N.M. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2024)

Opinion

A-1-CA-41139

02-01-2024

LAZARO LLANES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LARRY H. MILLER CASA CHRYSLER, Defendant-Appellee.

Lazaro Llanes Albuquerque, NM Pro Se Appellant. Snell & Wilmer LLP Todd E. Rinner Albuquerque, NM for Appellee

JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly in Odyssey.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Daniel E. Ramczyk, District Court Judge.

Lazaro Llanes Albuquerque, NM Pro Se Appellant.

Snell & Wilmer LLP Todd E. Rinner Albuquerque, NM for Appellee

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge

{¶1} Plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant. In this Court's notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to summarily affirm. Plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition, and Defendant filed a memorandum in support, both of which we have duly considered. Remaining unpersuaded by Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition, we affirm.

{¶2} In his memorandum in opposition, Plaintiff maintains that the district court erred in granting summary judgment. [MIO 1-2] Plaintiff has failed, however, to assert any new facts, law, or argument that persuade this Court that our notice of proposed disposition was erroneous. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 ("Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law."); State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that "[a] party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact," and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. We therefore refer Plaintiff to our analysis contained therein.

{¶3} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we affirm.

{¶4} IT IS SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR: SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge, KATHERINE A. WRAY, Judge