Cedrins v. Shrestha ( 2011 )

1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please
2 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.
3 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated
4 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does
5 not include the filing date.
6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
7 INARA CEDRINS,
8 Plaintiff-Appellant,
9 v. NO. 30,750
10 RAMESH KUMAR SHRESTHA,
11 Defendant-Appellee.
12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
13 Valerie Mackie Huling, District Judge
14 Inara Cedrins
15 Chicago, IL
16 Pro Se Appellant
17 Ramesh Kumar Shrestha
18 Albuquerque, NM
19 Pro Se Appellee
20 MEMORANDUM OPINION
21 KENNEDY, Judge.
22 Appellant (Plaintiff) appeals pro se from the district court’s August 27, 2010,
23 order of dismissal with prejudice. [RP 63, 71] Our notice proposed to dismiss, and
24 in response Plaintiff filed a timely “objection to notice of proposed summary
1 disposition.” We are not persuaded by Plaintiff’s arguments, and therefore dismiss
2 for lack of finality.
3 As set forth in our notice, Plaintiff below filed an “objection to order of
4 dismissal” [RP 66], which was filed subsequent to the order of dismissal and which
5 we view as comparable to a motion for reconsideration. As we explained in our
6 notice, because the district court has not yet entered a written order ruling on
7 Plaintiff’s post-judgment motion, dismissal is appropriate. See generally Grygorwicz
8 v. Trujillo, 2009-NMSC-009, ¶ 8, 145 N.M. 650, 203 P.3d 865 (explaining that, if a
9 party makes a post-judgment motion directed at the final judgment pursuant to . . .
10 Section 39-1-1 . . . the time for filing an appeal does not begin to run until the district
11 court enters an express disposition of that motion).
12 In response to our notice, Plaintiff expresses her frustration regarding delay in
13 this case [objection 1] and urges this Court to note highlighted matters on her
14 original list of evidence. [objection 1] However, until entry of a written order ruling
15 on Plaintiff’s post-judgment motion, any appeal is premature. See Dickens v. Laurel
16 Healthcare, LLC, 2009-NMCA-122, ¶ 6, 147 N.M. 303, 222 P.3d 675 (holding that
17 because resolution of the post-judgment motion could alter, amend, or moot the order
18 that is being challenged, the order is not final and the appeal is premature).
2
1 Accordingly, for reasons set forth herein and in our notice, we dismiss.
2 IT IS SO ORDERED.
3 ___________________________________
4 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge
5 WE CONCUR:
6 ___________________________
7 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
8 ___________________________
9 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
3