Opinion
A-1-CA-39986
05-12-2022
KRISTEN WEDDLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES, Defendant-Appellee,
Western Agriculture, Resource and Business Advocates, LLP A. Blair Dunn Jared R. Vander Dussen Albuquerque, NM for Appellant Jarmie & Rogers, P.C. Cody R. Rogers Las Cruces, NM for Appellee
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 SIERRA COUNTY Mercedes C. Murphy, District Judge
Western Agriculture, Resource
and Business Advocates, LLP
A. Blair Dunn
Jared R. Vander Dussen
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellant
Jarmie & Rogers, P.C.
Cody R. Rogers
Las Cruces, NM
for Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge
{¶1} Plaintiff asserts the district court erred by dismissing Count 1 of her complaint, brought pursuant to the New Mexico Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), NMSA 1978, §§ 10-16C-1 to -6 (2010). We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to affirm. Plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition to our proposed summary affirmance, which we have duly considered.
{¶2} Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition has not asserted any fact, law, or argument that persuades us that our notice of proposed disposition was erroneous. See 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point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374; see also Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955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."). Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we conclude that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate error on appeal. Farmers, Inc., v. Dal Mach. & Fabricating, Inc., 1990-NMSC-100, ¶ 8, 111 N.M. 6, 800 P.2d 1063 (stating that the burden is on the appellant to clearly demonstrate that the trial court erred); State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10, 127 N.M. 393, 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the trial court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error). We therefore affirm.
{¶3} IT IS SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR: KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge, SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge