Community 1st Bank Las Vegas v. Quick Care, LLC

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Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum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 COMMUNITY 1st BANK LAS VEGAS,
3 Plaintiff-Appellee,
4 v. No. 35,090
5 QUICK CARE, LLC, a New Mexico
6 limited liability company, and
7 ALFONSO ARCHULETA,
8 Defendants-Appellants.
9 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY
10 Manuel I Arrieta, District Judge
11 Moses, Dunn, Farmer & Tuthill, P.C.
12 Nathan C. Sprague
13 Albuquerque, NM
14 for Appellee
15 Alfonso Archuleta
16 Las Cruces, NM
17 Pro Se Appellant
18 MEMORANDUM OPINION
19 SUTIN, Judge.
1 {1} Defendant Alfonso Archuleta appeals, pro se, from a district court order
2 denying a motion to set aside a judgment pursuant to Rule 1-060(B) NMRA. We
3 issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendant has responded with a pro se
4 memorandum in opposition. We affirm.
5 {2} As we previously observed, Defendant’s notice of appeal indicates that he is
6 appealing from two orders. [RP 719] The first order is a January 30, 2014, order that
7 included the denial of his motion to intervene. [RP 461, 722] We note that the ruling
8 was based on the fact that Defendant Archuleta was already a party in the case. [RP
9 461 (¶ 1)] In any event, the matter became moot when Defendant entered into a
10 subsequent settlement and a stipulated order of dismissal with prejudice in August
11 2014. [RP 613]
12 {3} The second order listed on the notice of appeal [RP 719] is a September 22,
13 2015, order that denied Defendant Archuleta’s motion to set aside the original
14 judgment. [RP 700] The Rule 1-060(B) motion argued that the judgment should be set
15 aside as applied to Defendant Quick Care, LLC. [RP 617] Our calendar notice
16 proposed to hold that the district court properly denied the motion on the ground that
17 Defendant Archuleta could not represent Defendant Quick Care. See LR3-202(B)
18 NMRA (prohibiting pro se parties from representing corporations); see also NMSA
19 1978, § 36-2-27 (1999) (prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law). Because
2
1 Defendant Archuleta’s memorandum in opposition continues to attempt to advocate
2 on behalf on Defendant Quick Care, we conclude that he has not established any error
3 below.
4 {4} For the reasons set forth in this Opinion, we affirm.
5 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED
6 __________________________________
7 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
8 WE CONCUR:
9 _________________________________
10 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge
11 _________________________________
12 STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge
3