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Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum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 DIANE BERMAN,
3 Plaintiff-Appellee,
4 v. NO. 34,799
5 ROBERT ORDUNO,
6 Defendant-Appellant,
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY
8 David K. Thomson, District Judge
9 Diane Berman
10 Santa Fe, NM
11 Pro Se Appellee
12 Robert Orduno
13 Santa Fe, NM
14 Pro Se Appellant
15 MEMORANDUM OPINION
16 ZAMORA, Judge.
17 {1} Defendant has appealed from a final order. We previously issued a notice of
18 proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to reverse and remand for
19 further proceedings. Defendant has filed a memorandum in support and Plaintiff has
1 filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we adhere to our initial
2 assessment.
3 {2} Because we previously set forth the pertinent background information and
4 applicable principles of law in the notice of proposed summary disposition, we will
5 avoid undue reiteration here. Instead, we will focus on the content of the responsive
6 memoranda.
7 {3} Defendant continues to take issue with the jurisdiction of the district court over
8 the subject matter and his person. [Defendant’s MIS 1-3] The argument(s) are
9 incomprehensible. As previously stated, we perceive no principled basis for the
10 jurisdictional challenge.
11 {4} However, the absence of notice remains a critical concern. Although we
12 understand Plaintiff to suggest that Defendant received notice of the trial setting,
13 [Plaintiff’s MIO 1] the document sent by the district court did not indicate that the
14 matter had been set for trial. [RP 188] And although Plaintiff appears to have sent a
15 copy of a draft pretrial order to Defendant via certified mail, [Plaintiff’s MIO Exhibit
16 1A-C] this document was neither signed by the judge nor filed. As such, it cannot be
17 regarded as official notice of a firm trial setting. Absent such notice, we remain of the
18 opinion that the judgment must be set aside.
2
1 {5} Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, as well as the reasons set forth in the
2 notice of proposed summary disposition, we reverse and remand for further
3 proceedings.
4 {6} IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
7 WE CONCUR:
8
9 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
10
11 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
3