July 18, 2019- Patricia Bojorquez v. Conn Appliances, Inc., No. A-1-CA-37863

1 	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 PATRICIA BOJORQUEZ,
3 	Plaintiff-Appellee,
4 V . 	NO. A-1-CA-37863
5 	CONN APPLIANCES, INC.
6 and CONN CREDIT I, LP,
7 	Defendants-Appellants,
8 and
9 CONN CREDIT CORPORATION, INC.,
10 	Defendant.
11 	APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DONA ANA COUNTY
12 	Marci E. Beyer, District Judge
13 	Flores, Tawney & Acosta, P.C.
14 Daisy Chaparro
15 	Las Cruces, NM
16 for Appellee
17 Robles, Rael & Anaya, P.C.
18 	Marcus J. Rael, Jr.
19 Jordon P. George
20 	Albuquerque, NM
21 	for Appellants
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 7/18/2019 8:29 AM

1 	MEMORANDUM OPINION
2 	VANZI, Judge.
3 	{1} 	Defendants appeal from the di strict court ' s order denying their motion to
4 compel arbitration. In this Court' s notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to
5 summarily affirm. Defendants filed a memorandum in opposition (MIO), which we
6 have duly considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm.
7 	{2} 	In their MIO, Defendants continue to contend that Plaintiff entered into the
8 retail 	installment 	contract 	attached 	to 	their 	motion 	to 	compel 	arbitration
9 (Agreement), which contains an arbitration provision, and that Plaintiff has admitted
10 	she entered into the Agreement. [MIO 1-3] Defendants urge us to agree with their
11 	conclusion 	because 	Plaintiff admitted 	to 	purchasing 	approximately 	$4,500 	of
12 	furniture and the Agreement likewise reflects a transaction for approximately $4,500
13 	of merchandise. [MIO 3] Additionally, Defendants note that the Agreement is the
14 	only document in the record evidencing Plaintiffs contractual relationship with
15 	Defendants, and Plaintiff admitted she signed some paperwork indicating a loan for
16 	$4,500. [MIO 2-3] Essentially, Defendants ask us to rely on coincidences and the
17 absence of additional documents in the record to support their argument that Plaintiff
18 	entered into the Agreement. However, we will not reweigh the evidence on appeal
19 	nor disturb the district court's credibility determinations. See NM. Taxation &
20 	Revenue Dep 't v. Casias Trucking, 2014-NMCA-099, il 20, 336 P.3d 436 ("We will
2

1 not reweigh the evidence nor substitute our judgment for that of the fact finder."
2 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)).
3 	{3} 	Defendant's MIO is not responsive to the detailed reasoning of our proposed
4 affirmance, in which we stated that the evidence appears to support that Plaintiff
5 never entered into the transaction alleged by Defendant, any contractual relationship
6 between the parties stemmed from 	a different transaction 	not reflected 	in the
7 Agreement, and parties are not required to arbitrate in the absence of a valid contract.
8 [CN 5-8] See Flemma v. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc., 2013-NMSC-022, ,r,r 14,
9 28, 303 P .3d 814 (holding that state law determines whether a contract exists and
10 	that a valid agreement to arbitrate is a prerequisite to compel arbitration). Defendants
11 	have not asserted any facts, law, or argument in their MIO that persuade this Court
12 that our notice of proposed disposition was erroneous. See Hennessy v. Duryea,
13 	1998-NMCA-036, ,r 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 ("Our courts have repeatedly
14 held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the
15 	proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law."); State v. Mondragon,
16 	1988-NMCA-027, 	,r 10, 	107 	N.M. 	421, 	759 	P.2d 	1003 	(stating 	that 	a 	party
17 	responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point
18 	out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this
19 requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris,
20 	2013-NMCA-031, ,r 3,297 P.3d 374.
3

1 {4} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and
2 	herein, we affirm the district court's order.
3 	{5} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
6 	WE CONCUR:
7 	~&.8 JEN 	~ATTREP, Judge
4