Lester v. Lester

CourtNew Mexico Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 29, 2015
Docket33,926
StatusUnpublished

This text of Lester v. Lester (Lester v. Lester) 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.

Bluebook
Lester v. Lester, (N.M. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 RALPH N. LESTER,

3 Plaintiff-Appellant,

4 v. No. 33,926

5 DEAN G. LESTER and KAREN LESTER,

6 Defendants-Appellees.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY 8 Mark Terrence Sanchez, District Judge

9 Ralph Lester 10 Albuquerque, NM

11 Pro se Appellant

12 Dean G. Lester 13 Karen Lester 14 Ruidoso, NM

15 Pro Se Appellees

16 MEMORANDUM OPINION

17 BUSTAMANTE, Judge. 1 {1} Plaintiff appeals, in a self-represented capacity, from the district court’s

2 dismissal of his case for filing a frivolous lawsuit. [RP 24, 35] Our notice proposed

3 to affirm, and Plaintiff in turn filed an “objection to proposed disposition” (objection).

4 We are unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s arguments and therefore affirm.

5 {2} We acknowledge Plaintiff’s arguments in his objection that the district court

6 should not have ruled on the case in Plaintiff’s absence [objection 1; RP 22] and that

7 the court failed “to take into . . . consideration the facts and law relating to the case.”

8 [objection 1] For the reasons discussed in our notice, however, we conclude that the

9 district court properly exercised its discretion to assess that Plaintiff’s lawsuit was

10 frivolous because Plaintiff failed to make a showing that he was entitled to his

11 requested injunctive relief [RP 1, 2-3, 13] given his failure to satisfy the “irreparable

12 injury” criteria for entitlement to injunctive relief. See generally Moody v. Stribling,

13 1999-NMCA-094, ¶ 30, 127 N.M. 630, 985 P.2d 1210 (providing that whether or not

14 to grant equitable relief is a matter left to the sound discretion of the district court); see

15 also Hines Corp. v. City of Albuquerque, 1980-NMSC-107, ¶ 13, 95 N.M. 311, 621

16 P.2d 1116 (noting that injunctive relief is granted to prevent irreparable injury for

17 which there is no adequate and complete remedy at law). In this regard, in the event

18 Plaintiff is ultimately successful in a claim that trust assets have been wrongfully

2 1 distributed or mismanaged, then he has the available remedy of securing an award of

2 monetary damages. We accordingly affirm.

3 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 _______________________________________ 5 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge

6 WE CONCUR:

7 8 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge

9 10 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Moody v. Stribling
1999 NMCA 094 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1999)
Hines Corp. v. City of Albuquerque
621 P.2d 1116 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1980)
State v. Charlesworth
17 P.2d 1104 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lester v. Lester, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lester-v-lester-nmctapp-2015.