Channon v. Nexstar Media Group, A-1-CA-36076

Matthew J. Channon (pro se) appealed the district court’s order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss and the denial of his Rule 1-059 NMRA motion.
Defendants include Nexstar Media Group (formerly Media General / LIN Television) and several named individuals and entities; Nexstar was dismissed by stipulation in the district court.
The Court of Appeals issued two notices of proposed summary disposition, initially proposing full reversal in part and affirmance in part; after briefing it altered its position only as to Nexstar’s dismissal.
Channon filed a memorandum in opposition and requested (1) that the court sanction Nexstar and (2) that the court order changes to the case caption; he did not present new legal authorities or factual points addressing the court’s prior analysis.
Nexstar filed a late “response” to Channon’s memorandum; the appellate court declined to consider it because it was untimely and not authorized by the appellate rules.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Nexstar (based on the parties’ stipulation) and reversed the district court on the remaining issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of dismissal of Nexstar as a party	Nexstar should not have been dismissed / seeks relief regarding caption	Nexstar relied on the parties’ stipulation to dismiss	Court affirmed dismissal — parties stipulated to dismissal and stipulations are generally honored
Request to sanction Nexstar	Asks the appellate court to recommend sanctions against Nexstar	Nexstar did not consent to being sanctioned; no basis shown	Court declined to recommend or impose sanctions — no basis shown and court not positioned to do so
Request to modify the case caption	Requests appellate intervention to change captioning	Defendants/respondents did not concede caption change; captioning is a district-court matter	Court refused to alter caption — instructed that caption issues are for the district court to address first
Consideration of Nexstar’s late response to appellant’s memorandum	Argues court should consider Nexstar’s response	Nexstar submitted a late, rule-noncompliant response	Court declined to consider Nexstar’s untimely response under Rule 12-210(D)

Peay v. Ortega, 101 N.M. 564, 686 P.2d 254 (N.M. 1984) (courts generally honor stipulations between parties regarding litigation conduct)
State v. Mondragon, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988) (party responding to a summary calendar notice must specifically point out legal or factual errors)
State v. Harris, 297 P.3d 374 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013) (discussed in relation to procedural/supersession context)