Mendez v. Cellco Partnership, Inc. ( 2018 )

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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 EDWARD F. MENDEZ and 3 RAYMOND J. MCQUEEN, 4 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 5 v. No. A-1-CA-35893 6 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, INC. d/b/a 7 VERIZON WIRELESS, INC.; GO WIRELESS 8 INC.; CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC.; 9 NORTH SHORE AGENCY; IC SYSTEM; 10 RECEIVABLE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, 11 LLC; NATIONS RECOVERY CENTER, INC.; 12 NANCY B. CLARK, SVP-OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE 13 and TERRI WALKER, EXECUTIVE RELATIONS, 14 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, INC. d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, 15 Defendants-Appellees. 16 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 17 RAYMOND Z. ORTIZ, District Judge 18 Raymond J. McQueen 19 Santa Fe, NM 20 Pro Se Appellant 21 Edward F. Mendez 22 Santa Fe, NM 1 Pro Se Appellant 2 Hinkle Shanor LLP 3 Benjamin F. Feuchter 4 Albuquerque, NM 5 for Appellees 6 MEMORANDUM OPINION 7 HANISEE, Judge. 8 {1} Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s order granting (1) motion to dismiss 9 first amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and (2) motion to compel 10 arbitration and stay proceedings. This Court issued a second calendar notice proposing 11 to affirm the district court’s order on February 6, 2018. On February 27, 2018, 12 Defendants filed a memorandum in support of this Court’s second notice of proposed 13 disposition. On March 1, 2018, Defendant Nations Recovery Center, Inc. joined in the 14 memorandum in support filed on February 27, 2018. To this date, Plaintiffs have not 15 filed a memorandum in opposition to this Court’s second notice of proposed 16 disposition, and the time for doing so has now run. Accordingly, we rely on the 17 reasoning set out in this Court’s second notice of proposed disposition and we affirm. 18 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 J. MILES HANSIEE, Judge 2 1 WE CONCUR: 2 3 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 4 5 EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge 3