N.M.Uninsured Employers' Fund v. Gallegos, 34,845

Background

In 2004 a worker injured on the job; WCA found employer (Greg Gallegos) uninsured and issued a supplementary compensation order requiring repayment to the Uninsured Employers’ Fund (UEF) of $16,222.26 after employer defaulted.
UEF filed a district-court petition to enter judgment on the WCA order in 2006 (the 2006 Petition). Gallegos, pro se, answered but disputed notice and liability.
The district court sua sponte dismissed the 2006 Petition for lack of prosecution in 2007; UEF moved and the court reinstated the petition.
After further inactivity the court again dismissed the 2006 Petition for lack of prosecution in April 2008 (without prejudice). UEF did not timely move to reinstate.
In 2015 (nearly seven years later) UEF moved to reinstate under Rule 1-041(E)(2) and to amend the prior petition; the district court denied reinstatement as untimely and denied reconsideration. UEF appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse discretion and clarifying that Rule 1-041(E)(2) requires a motion to reinstate within 30 days and that Section 52-5-10(B) does not override procedural requirements; UEF may file a new petition because no statute of limitations or statutory time limit bars it and the prior dismissal was without prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (UEF)	Defendant's Argument (Gallegos)	Held
Whether district court abused discretion by denying 2015 motion to reinstate a case dismissed for lack of prosecution	UEF: good cause existed and court improperly relied on "tardiness" instead of focusing on good-cause factors; reinstatement should be allowed	Gallegos: case long dormant; no entitlement to reinstatement after long delay	Court: No abuse. Rule 1-041(E)(2) requires a motion within 30 days; UEF’s 2015 motion was untimely and thus not subject to the rule’s good-cause inquiry.
Whether Section 52-5-10(B) (WCA enforcement) compelled reinstatement despite procedural default	UEF: statute mandates district court must enter judgment on WCA petition, so procedural bars should not defeat enforcement	Gallegos: procedural rules apply; no pending petition means statute’s directive is not triggered	Court: Section 52-5-10(B) does not trump civil-procedure rules. The statute requires a petition to be before the court; because the old petition remained dismissed, the statute’s mandatory entry-of-judgment provision did not require reinstatement.
Whether UEF is time-barred from refiling a petition to enforce the WCA order	UEF: argued no statute of limitations applies to state agency enforcement	Gallegos: argued long delay should preclude relief	Court: State is not generally subject to statutes of limitation; no time limit in § 52-5-10(B); dismissal was without prejudice—UEF may file a new petition.
Applicability of Rule 1-060(B) alternatives after missing Rule 1-041(E)(2) deadline	UEF: urged equitable considerations and cited cases allowing relief despite delay	Gallegos: procedural deadlines should be enforced; no equitable excuse shown	Court: Where Rule 1-041(E)(2) window is missed, a party may seek relief under Rule 1-060(B) (e.g., excusable neglect) but UEF did not pursue or justify such relief; cited authorities show limited, fact-specific relief is possible but not automatic.

Key Cases Cited

Meiboom v. Watson, 128 N.M. 536, 994 P.2d 1154 (N.M. 2000) (party must file motion to reinstate within 30 days to trigger good-cause analysis under Rule 1-041(E)(2))
Bankers Trust Co. of Cal. v. Baca, 141 N.M. 127, 151 P.3d 88 (N.M. Ct. App.) (dismissal under Rule 1-041(E)(2) cannot proceed except by leave of court; reinstatement requirements explained)
Summit Elec. Supply Co. v. Rhodes & Salmon, P.C., 148 N.M. 590, 241 P.3d 188 (N.M. Ct. App.) (good-cause reinstatement analysis and importance of timing/context)
Boyd, Directors of Insane Asylum v., 37 N.M. 36, 17 P.2d 358 (N.M. 1932) (statutes of limitation ordinarily do not run against the state)
Briesmeister v. Medina, 76 N.M. 606, 417 P.2d 208 (N.M. 1966) (dismissal without prejudice does not destroy plaintiff’s rights; res judicata does not apply)