Washburn v. Goodman

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Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum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 ANA WASHBURN,
3 Plaintiff-Appellant,
4 v. NO. 34,627
5 JERALD GOODMAN,
6 Defendant-Appellee.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
8 Shannon C. Bacon, District Judge
9 Ana Washburn
10 Albuquerque, NM
11 Pro Se Appellant
12 Jerald Goodman
13 Albuquerque, NM
14 Pro Se Appellee
15 MEMORANDUM OPINION
16 VIGIL, Judge.
1 {1} Appellant Ana Washburn appeals from two orders (an amended order and the
2 original order) granting her application for a permanent restraining order against her
3 neighbor, Jerald Goodman. She appeals these orders to the extent that they are
4 “mutual” restraining orders and to the extent that the amended order requires her to
5 stay 500 yards away from Goodman. [RP 42; DS 7] In our notice of proposed
6 summary disposition, we proposed to affirm. Goodman filed a memorandum in
7 opposition, which we have duly considered. For the reasons stated in the notice of
8 proposed disposition and below, we affirm.
9 {2} As an appellate court, we “presume[] that the district court is correct, and the
10 burden is on the appellant to clearly demonstrate that the district court erred.” See
11 Corona v. Corona, 2014-NMCA-071, ¶ 26, 329 P.3d 701. As we stated in more detail
12 in our calendar notice, Washburn has not demonstrated that the district court abused
13 its discretion in entering a “mutual” restraining order and ordering Washburn to stay
14 at least 500 yards away from Goodman (Issue 1). [CN 2-4] Similarly, Washburn has
15 not demonstrated that the district court was biased against her (Issue 2). [CN 4-5]
16 Accordingly, we proposed to affirm.
17 {3} Goodman filed a memorandum in opposition; however, her arguments are not
18 responsive to our proposed disposition. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036,
2
1 ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary
2 calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly
3 point out errors in fact or law.”); State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107
4 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar
5 notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the
6 repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute
7 on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374.
8 {4} Therefore, for the reasons stated here and in our notice of proposed summary
9 disposition, we affirm.
10 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED.
11 __________________________________
12 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge
13 WE CONCUR:
14 ___________________________________
15 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge
16 ___________________________________
17 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
3