HDQ, LLC v. Quiet Title ( 2011 )

1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 2 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 3 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other 4 deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 5 filing date. 6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 7 CORNELIUS DOOLEY and 8 SUSAN HOFFMAN-DOOLEY, 9 substitute parties for HDQ, LLC, 10 a New Mexico limited liability Company, 11 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 12 v. NO. 30,942 13 QUIET TITLE COMPANY, LLC, a 14 New Mexico limited liability company, 15 J. MICHAEL HYATT, individually 16 and as a member of QUIET TITLE 17 COMPANY, LLC, 18 Defendants-Appellees. 19 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 20 Sarah M. Singleton, District Judge 21 The Simons Firm, LLP 22 Thomas A. Simons, IV 23 Kelcey C. Nichols 24 Santa Fe, NM 25 for Appellants 26 Lorenz Law 27 Alice T. Lorenz 28 Albuquerque, NM 29 Sommer, Udall, Sutin, Hardwick & Hyatt, PA 1 Kurt A. Sommer 2 Jack Hardwick 3 Santa Fe, NM 4 for Appellees 5 MEMORANDUM OPINION 6 VIGIL, Judge. 7 In this appeal, the Court issued a calendar notice on March 2, 2011, proposing 8 summary affirmance of the district court’s order denying Plaintiff HDQ, LLC’s 9 motion for prejudgment interest. On March 14, 2011, a notice of automatic stay was 10 filed in this Court, notifying the Court that Defendant Quiet Title Company, LLC had 11 filed a petition for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court. On July 20, 12 2011, this Court entered an order staying this appeal pending the bankruptcy 13 proceedings. On July 18, 2011, and August 22, 2011, the United Sates Bankruptcy 14 Court entered a stipulated order dismissing the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, and a 15 default order approving modification of the automatic stay, respectively. The parties 16 agree it is appropriate for this Court to lift the stay of the appeal. The parties also 17 agree that this Court should allow Cornelius Dooley and Susan Hoffman-Dooley to 18 be substituted for Plaintiff HDQ, LLC, in this action. 2 1 On October 14, 2011, this Court filed an order that lifted the stay of this appeal 2 pending bankruptcy, requested the parties respond to the March 2, 2011, calendar 3 notice, and allowed the substitution of Plaintiff HDQ, LLC for Plaintiffs Cornelius 4 Dooley and Susan Hoffman-Dooley. Defendants have filed a memorandum in support 5 of the calendar notice. The substituted Plaintiffs have filed a response indicating that 6 they have abandoned the appeal and do not opposed the calendar notice analysis. 7 For the reasons set forth in this Court’s March 2, 2011, calendar notice, we 8 affirm the district court’s order denying Plaintiff and the substituted Plaintiffs 9 prejudgment interest. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 _______________________________ 12 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 13 WE CONCUR: 14 _________________________________ 15 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 16 _________________________________ 17 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 3