Christoffel v. Cloud, 35,991

Plaintiff Steven Christoffel (pro se) appealed the denial of a Rule 1-060(B) NMRA motion for relief from a prior judgment that had dismissed his claims.
Defendants are Jack Cloud (Planning Department Manager) and the City of Albuquerque; appeal from Bernalillo County district court.
This Court issued a proposed summary disposition recommending affirmance; Christoffel filed a memorandum in opposition.
Christoffel argued (1) certain ordinances/statutes constituted newly discovered evidence, (2) inadvertence and fraud justified relief, (3) the district court misapprehended his arguments and should reconsider, and (4) he should be allowed to supplement the record with transcripts.
The Court concluded the cited materials were previously available (not newly discovered), the contested arguments merely rehashed prior, rejected positions (law of the case), and supplemental transcripts would not affect the outcome. The Court affirmed the denial of Rule 1-060(B) relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ordinances/statutes cited are newly discovered evidence under Rule 1-060(B)(2)	Christoffel: the statutes and ordinances are newly discovered evidence supporting relief	City: the materials were previously available and could have been found with due diligence	Court: Not newly discovered; denial affirmed
Whether inadvertence or fraud justified relief	Christoffel: alleged inadvertence and fraud warranted relief	City: no adequate factual showing of inadvertence or fraud	Court: Plaintiff offered no persuasive elaboration; relief denied
Whether district court misapprehended arguments such that reconsideration is warranted (law of the case)	Christoffel: court misapprehended his arguments and should reconsider	City: arguments merely reiterate positions already rejected; law of the case applies	Court: Arguments reiterate prior rejected claims; Rule 1-060(B) relief inappropriate
Whether record should be supplemented with transcripts to affect review	Christoffel: should be allowed to supplement record with transcripts	City: existing record is sufficient; transcripts wouldn’t change analysis	Court: Record supplies necessary information; transcripts would not affect outcome; supplementation unnecessary

DiMatteo v. County of Dona Ana, 785 P.2d 285 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989) (discusses law-of-the-case doctrine in reconsideration context)
Lenscrafters, Inc. v. Kehoe, 282 P.3d 758 (N.M. 2012) (Rule 1-060(B) reconsideration requires justification based on recognized exceptions)
Udall v. Townsend, 968 P.2d 341 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998) (Court may decide on summary calendar when the record, docketing statement, and memoranda supply sufficient information)