We take the following facts as they were found in the district" court's order granting Dr. Lash's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has not challenged the district court's findings of fact, and we are bound by them on appeal See Seipertv.Johnson, 2003-NMCA-119, ¶ 26, 134 N M 394, 77 P.3d 298. {6} On the same day Plaintiff filed the complaint, a summons was issued for Dr. Lash.

Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants challenge the district court's findings of fact, and consequently, we accept them as true. See Seipert v. Johnson , 2003-NMCA-119, ¶ 26, 134 N.M. 394, 77 P.3d 298 ("An unchallenged finding of the trial court is binding on appeal."). Additionally, while we acknowledge federal and state policy favoring arbitration, which Defendants highlight as foundational, we emphasize that state contract law also applies to arbitration agreements, and even the FAA permits arbitration agreements to be invalidated by generally applicable contract defenses such as unconscionability, which state law governs.

See State ex rel. N.M. State Highway & Transp. Dep't v. Baca ( Baca ), 120 N.M. 1, 4, 896 P.2d 1148, 1151 (1995) (concluding that courts have “inherent power to impose ... sanctions on both litigants and attorneys ... to regulate their docket, promote judicial efficiency, and deter frivolous filings” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Seipert v. Johnson, 2003–NMCA–119, ¶ 9, 134 N.M. 394, 77 P.3d 298 (stating that a “district court could properly sanction under its inherent power to control the litigation and the conduct of the parties before it”). 1. Standard of Review

S.D. Fla. 2000). Second, she argues that under New Mexico law attorney fees are compensatory, not punitive, citing Seipert v. Johnson, 134 N.M. 394, 398, 77 P.3d 298, 302 (Ct. App.), cert. denied, 134 N.M. 374, 77 P.3d 278 (2003). The Court held a hearing on the Supplemental Objection and response and entered a Scheduling Order (doc 157) requesting briefing.

{¶4} The district court made extensive findings of fact in its order granting the permanent injunction, and in relation to HGT's appeal of that order, we set forth those findings to the extent they are unchallenged on appeal. See Seipert v. Johnson, 2003-NMCA-119, ¶ 26, 134 N.M. 394, 77 P.3d 298 ("An unchallenged finding of the trial court is binding on appeal."). Plaintiffs are the owners of five adjoining parcels of undeveloped land on the west side of Epazote Road in Rio Rancho, New Mexico.

Mother does not specifically challenge these findings, see Rule 12-318(A)(4) NMRA, and they are therefore binding on appeal. See Siepert v. Johnson, 2003-NMCA-119, ¶ 26, 134 N.M. 394, 77 P.3d 298. Nor has Mother challenged the alternative rationale in the district court's order denying her motion to reconsider.

For one, Wife has not directly challenged any of the district court's findings-her attacks are primarily directed to the quality and nature of Husband's evidence. See Seipert v. Johnson, 2003-NMCA-119, ¶ 26, 134 N.M. 394, 77 P.3d 298 ("An unchallenged finding of the trial court is binding on appeal."). Nor has Wife acknowledged or addressed the substance of all of the evidence bearing upon the district court's findings.

{¶7} The parties appear to agree that approximately half of Husband's pension was earned during the marriage and is community property. See Seipert v. Johnson, 2003-NMCA-119, ¶ 26, 134 N.M. 394, 77 P.3d 298 ("An unchallenged finding of the trial court is binding on appeal."). The only issue in this appeal is whether the remaining half of the pension Husband earned before the marriage was transmuted into community property.

The procedural history is based on the findings made by the district court and facts that are undisputed by the parties. See Seipert v. Johnson, 2003-NMCA-119, ¶ 26, 134 N.M 394, 77 P.3d 298 (stating that unchallenged findings are binding on appeal). To the extent that the Lujans seek to challenge specific findings in this appeal, they waived these arguments, see Rule 12-318(A)(4) NMRA, by "fail[ing] to properly set forth all the evidence bearing upon the findings " Martinez v. Sw. Landfills, Inc., 1993-NMCA-020, ¶ 18, 115 N.M. 181, 848 P.2d 1108.

The procedural history is based on the findings made by the district court and facts that are undisputed by the parties. See Seipert v. Johnson, 2003-NMCA-119, ¶ 26, 134 N.M. 394, 77 P.3d 298 (stating that unchallenged findings are binding on appeal). To the extent that the Lujans seek to challenge specific findings in this appeal, they waived these arguments, see Rule 12-318(A)(4) NMRA, by "fail[ing] to properly set forth all the evidence bearing upon the findings."