Najibi v. Halliburton Energy ( 2017 )

This decision was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see
Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of non-precedential dispositions. Please also note
that this electronic decision may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the
official paper version filed by the Supreme Court.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 MICHAEL NAJIBI,
3 Worker-Appellant,
4 v. No. 36,208
5 HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICE, and
6 ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.,
7 Employer/Insurer-Appellees.
8 APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION
9 David Skinner, Workers’ Compensation Judge
10 Michael Najibi
11 Las Cruces, NM
12 Pro se Appellant
13 Butt, Thornton & Baeher PC
14 M. Scott Owen
15 Albuquerque, NM
16 for Appellees
17 MEMORANDUM OPINION
18 GARCIA, Judge.
19 {1} Worker-Appellant Michael Najibi (“Worker”) appeals from the workers’
1 compensation judge’s (“WCJ”) amended compensation order dismissing his
2 complaint with prejudice. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary
3 disposition in which we proposed to dismiss. Worker has filed a memorandum in
4 opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded.
5 {2} As we previously observed, the filing of a timely notice of appeal is a
6 mandatory precondition to this Court’s jurisdiction. In re Yalkut, 2008-NMSC-009,
7 ¶ 24, 143 N.M. 387, 176 P.3d 1119 (per curiam). In this case, Worker filed his notice
8 of appeal nearly three months late. We therefore proposed to dismiss. See, e.g.,
9 Chavez v. U-Haul Co. of N.M., 1997-NMSC-051, ¶¶ 19-22, 124 N.M. 165, 947 P.2d
10 122 (declining to hear an appeal filed thirty days late).
11 {3} In his memorandum in opposition Worker offers neither any basis for extending
12 the filing deadline, nor any justification for the delay. [MIO 1-4] Instead, we
13 understand Worker to invite the Court to consider the merits of the appeal
14 notwithstanding the untimely filing. [Id.] We decline.
15 {4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed
16 summary disposition, we dismiss.
17 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED.
18 ________________________________
19 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
2
1 WE CONCUR:
2 _______________________________
3 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
4 _______________________________
5 HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge
3