Mondragon v. Leon
35,444
| N.M. Ct. App. | Jan 26, 2017Background
- Angelica Leon (respondent), proceeding pro se, was subject to a district-court default judgment entered as a discovery sanction under Rule 1-037 NMRA.
- The district court entered default judgment and Leon filed a motion within 30 days seeking reconsideration and to set aside the judgment. The motion did not cite a specific rule for relief.
- The district court denied that motion; Leon then filed a second motion to reconsider the denial. She did not file a notice of appeal from the default-judgment order within the appeal period.
- On appeal to the New Mexico Court of Appeals, the court treated procedural characterizations of Leon’s filings (Rule 1-059(E) motion to alter/reconsider; possible Rule 1-060 motion for relief from judgment) as central to timeliness analysis.
- The court concluded Leon’s notice of appeal was timely only as to the district court’s denial of her motion to set aside, not as to the underlying default judgment; nevertheless, all issues Leon raised challenged the default judgment itself.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of timely appeal of the default-judgment issues and denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Leon’s first post-judgment filing should be treated as a Rule 1-059(E) motion to alter/reconsider (tolling appeal time) | Leon contends the first filing was a motion to reconsider and to set aside the judgment (argues mixed character) | Court treats it as a Rule 1-059(E) motion because it attacked the judgment and was filed within 30 days | Treated as Rule 1-059(E); filing tolled time only for appealing that judgment, not for separately appealing the underlying default judgment unless properly raised |
| Whether the second motion to reconsider tolled the time to appeal the underlying default-judgment order | Leon argued the second motion extended time to appeal | Court relied on Rule 1-059 commentary: a motion to reconsider a previously denied Rule 1-059(E) motion does not extend the appeal period | Held: the second motion did not extend time to appeal the default-judgment order |
| Whether Leon’s filings should be treated as a Rule 1-060 motion for relief from judgment (and thus permit appeal from denial) | Leon urged that her initial motion sought setting aside the judgment (Rule 1-060) | Court noted the filings lacked Rule 1-060(B)(1)-(6) grounds and the docketing statement did not assert Rule 1-060 relief | Even if construed as Rule 1-060, appeal would be timely only from denial of the set-aside motion; Leon’s appellate issues all attacked the underlying default judgment and thus were untimely |
| Whether Leon’s jurisdictional/void-judgment argument based on absent sisters (indispensable parties) is viable on appeal | Leon suggested absence of sisters affected jurisdiction and made judgment void under Rule 1-060(B)(4) | Court observed the indispensability test is not jurisdictional and Leon did not properly raise or brief the issue or amend the docketing statement | Held: the argument is not viable and would not justify amendment or reversal; appeal dismissed as untimely as to the default judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Albuquerque Redi-Mix, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 142 N.M. 527, 168 P.3d 99 (N.M. 2007) (motions filed shortly after judgment should be treated as Rule 1-059 motions)
- In re Estate of Keeney, 121 N.M. 58, 908 P.2d 751 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995) (post-judgment motion filed shortly after order treated as Rule 1-059 motion)
- C.E. Alexander & Sons, Inc. v. DEC Int’l., Inc., 112 N.M. 89, 811 P.2d 899 (N.M. 1991) (indispensability is not a jurisdictional test)
- State v. Moore, 109 N.M. 119, 782 P.2d 91 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989) (requirements for showing good cause to amend docketing statement)
- Marquez v. Larrabee, 382 P.3d 968 (N.M. Ct. App. 2016) (addressing timeliness of appeals challenging default-judgment sanctions under similar circumstances)
- State v. Rael, 100 N.M. 193, 668 P.2d 309 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983) (standards for amending a docketing statement)
- State v. Salgado, 112 N.M. 537, 817 P.2d 730 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991) (rule changes and application regarding docketing and amendment)