Monteil v. Goslin ( 2015 )

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Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum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 CANDICE MONTEIL,
3 Plaintiff-Appellee,
4 v. NO. 34,397
5 DAVID GOSLIN,
6 Defendant,
7 and
8 RONALD BOYD,
9 Appellant.
10 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY
11 Sylvia LaMar, District Judge
12 David F. Cunningham
13 Santa Fe, NM
14 for Appellee
15 Ronald Boyd
16 Santa Fe, NM
17 Pro Se Appellant
18 MEMORANDUM OPINION
1 VIGIL, Chief Judge.
2 {1} Appellant has appealed from an award of attorney fees, imposed as a sanction
3 for his failure to appear. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary
4 disposition in which we proposed to uphold the award. Appellant has filed a
5 memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded. We
6 therefore affirm.
7 {2} The pertinent background information and applicable principles were
8 previously set out in the notice of proposed summary disposition. We will avoid
9 unnecessary repetition here, and instead focus on the content of the memorandum in
10 opposition.
11 {3} As we previously observed, the award was entered pursuant to the district
12 court’s inherent authority. See generally State ex rel. N.M. Highway & Transp. Dep’t
13 v. Baca, 1995-NMSC-033, ¶ 12, 120 N.M. 1, 896 P.2d 1148 (providing that the courts
14 possess the inherent authority independent of statute or rule, to award attorney fees
15 to vindicate judicial authority, inter alia). Although Appellant continues to assert that
16 his conduct was not sufficiently culpable to warrant the imposition of sanctions, [MIO
17 1-2] Appellant’s failure to appear at the scheduled hearing on the merits, of which he
18 was clearly notified, [RP 85] supplies an adequate basis for the district court’s
2
1 exercise of authority. See generally In re Jade G., 2001-NMCA-058, ¶ 28, 130 N.M.
2 687, 30 P.3d 376 (“Under its inherent authority, a court may sanction parties and
3 attorneys to ensure compliance with the proceedings of the court.”). We perceive no
4 abuse of discretion.
5 {4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary
6 disposition and above, we affirm.
7 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED.
8 __________________________________
9 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge
10 WE CONCUR:
11 ___________________________________
12 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
13 ___________________________________
14 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
3