Martin v. Martinez

CourtNew Mexico Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 23, 2021
StatusUnpublished

This text of Martin v. Martinez (Martin v. Martinez) 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
Martin v. Martinez, (N.M. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer- generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. A-1-CA-39404

SCOTT MARTIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JOSEFO MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY Francis J. Mathew, District Judge

Campbell Law LLC John Brendan Campbell Albuquerque, NM

for Appellant

Montgomery & Andrews, P.A. Randy S. Bartell Kaleb W. Brooks Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee

MEMORANDUM OPINION

IVES, Judge.

{1} Following a bench trial in favor of Defendant, Plaintiff appeals from the district court’s orders denying Plaintiff’s pretrial request for a continuance and post-trial request for a discovery sanction. We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum in support of our proposed summary affirmance, which we have duly considered. Plaintiff did not file a memorandum in opposition to our proposed disposition, and the time for doing so has now run. {2} For the reasons outlined in our notice of proposed disposition, and in the absence of opposition from either party, we conclude that Defendant failed to demonstrate error on appeal. Farmers, Inc., v. Dal Mach. & Fabricating, Inc., 1990- NMSC-100, ¶ 8, 111 N.M. 6, 800 P.2d 1063 (stating that the burden is on the appellant to clearly demonstrate that the trial court erred); State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10, 127 N.M. 393, 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the trial court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error). Accordingly, we affirm.

{3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge

WE CONCUR:

JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge

SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge

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

Related

State v. Aragon
1999 NMCA 060 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1999)
Farmers, Inc. v. Dal MacHine & Fabricating, Inc.
800 P.2d 1063 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Martin v. Martinez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-martinez-nmctapp-2021.