Cach, LLC v. Riley ( 2013 )

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Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum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 CACH, LLC,
3 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellee,
4 v. No. 32,931
5 DAVID W. RILEY,
6 Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/Appellant
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
8 Denise Barela Shepherd, District Judge
9 Modrall, Sperling, Roehl,
10 Harris & Sisk, P.A.
11 Jennifer G. Anderson
12 Emil J. Kiehne
13 Albuquerque, NM
14 Kanter & Grubesic, P.A.
15 Dana K. Grubesic
16 Albuquerque, NM
17 for Appellee
18 Law Offices of Roger Moore
19 Roger Moore
20 Albuquerque, NM
1 for Appellant
2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
3 BUSTAMANTE, Judge.
4 {1} Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff seeks to appeal from the district court’s order
5 granting his motion for summary judgment due to lack of standing and denying his
6 motion for reconsideration of the court’s ruling on attorney fees related to Plaintiff’s
7 claim. We issued a notice of proposed disposition, proposing to summarily dismiss
8 for lack of a final, appealable order, due to outstanding counterclaims and a lack of
9 certification language that could make the order immediately appealable under Rule
10 1-054(B)(1) NMRA. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant has filed a response to our notice,
11 supporting our proposed summary disposition. Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff has not
12 filed a response. “Failure to file a memorandum in opposition constitutes acceptance
13 of the disposition proposed in the calendar notice.” Frick v. Veazey,
14 1993-NMCA-119, ¶ 2, 116 N.M. 246, 861 P.2d 287. We, therefore, summarily
15 dismiss Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff’s appeal for lack of a final, appealable order for
16 the reasons set forth in our notice.
17 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge
2
1 WE CONCUR:
2
3 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
4
5 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
3