Bank of Colorado v. LL&D
This text of Bank of Colorado v. LL&D (Bank of Colorado v. LL&D) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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 Please 2 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 3 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 4 errors or other deviations from the official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 BANK OF COLORADO d/b/a 8 PINNACLE BANK f/k/a 9 WESTERN BANK OF GALLUP,
10 Plaintiff-Appellee,
11 v. NO. 30,841
12 LL and D, INC., d/b/a RESPOND 13 NEW MEXICO,
14 Defendant-Appellant.
15 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF McKINLEY COUNTY 16 Robert A. Aragon, District Judge
17 Mason & Isaacson, P.A. 18 Thomas Lynn Isaacson 19 Gallup, NM
20 for Appellee
21 Everett Law 22 Peter Everett, IV 23 Albuquerque, NM
24 for Appellant
25 MEMORANDUM OPINION
26 VIGIL, Judge. 1 Appellant (Defendant) appeals from the district court’s order that strikes his
2 answer on the basis that it was untimely filed. [RP 160] Our notice proposed to
3 dismiss for lack of a final order. In addition, our notice proposed to deny Appellee’s
4 (Plaintiff) request for attorney fees.
5 Defendant did not respond to our notice. See Frick v. Veazey, 116 N.M. 246,
6 247, 861 P.2d 287, 288 (Ct. App. 1993) (explaining that the failure to file a
7 memorandum in opposition to calendar notice constitutes acceptance of proposed
8 disposition). For reasons set forth in our notice, we dismiss for lack of a final order.
9 While Plaintiff filed a response opposing our proposed denial of its request for
10 attorney fees, we remain unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s arguments, and therefore deny its
11 request.
12 IT IS SO ORDERED.
13 _______________________________ 14 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
15 WE CONCUR:
16 _________________________________ 17 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge
2 1 _________________________________ 2 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bank of Colorado v. LL&D, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-colorado-v-lld-nmctapp-2011.