Najibi v. Halliburton Energy
This text of Najibi v. Halliburton Energy (Najibi v. Halliburton Energy) 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
This decision was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of non-precedential dispositions. Please also note that this electronic decision may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Supreme Court.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 MICHAEL NAJIBI,
3 Worker-Appellant,
4 v. No. 36,208
5 HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICE, and 6 ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.,
7 Employer/Insurer-Appellees.
8 APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION 9 David Skinner, Workers’ Compensation Judge
10 Michael Najibi 11 Las Cruces, NM
12 Pro se Appellant
13 Butt, Thornton & Baeher PC 14 M. Scott Owen 15 Albuquerque, NM
16 for Appellees
17 MEMORANDUM OPINION
18 GARCIA, Judge.
19 {1} Worker-Appellant Michael Najibi (“Worker”) appeals from the workers’ 1 compensation judge’s (“WCJ”) amended compensation order dismissing his
2 complaint with prejudice. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary
3 disposition in which we proposed to dismiss. Worker has filed a memorandum in
4 opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded.
5 {2} As we previously observed, the filing of a timely notice of appeal is a
6 mandatory precondition to this Court’s jurisdiction. In re Yalkut, 2008-NMSC-009,
7 ¶ 24, 143 N.M. 387, 176 P.3d 1119 (per curiam). In this case, Worker filed his notice
8 of appeal nearly three months late. We therefore proposed to dismiss. See, e.g.,
9 Chavez v. U-Haul Co. of N.M., 1997-NMSC-051, ¶¶ 19-22, 124 N.M. 165, 947 P.2d
10 122 (declining to hear an appeal filed thirty days late).
11 {3} In his memorandum in opposition Worker offers neither any basis for extending
12 the filing deadline, nor any justification for the delay. [MIO 1-4] Instead, we
13 understand Worker to invite the Court to consider the merits of the appeal
14 notwithstanding the untimely filing. [Id.] We decline.
15 {4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed
16 summary disposition, we dismiss.
17 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED.
18 ________________________________ 19 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
2 1 WE CONCUR:
2 _______________________________ 3 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
4 _______________________________ 5 HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Najibi v. Halliburton Energy, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/najibi-v-halliburton-energy-nmctapp-2017.