May 20, 2019- Keith Duerinck v. The Board of Supervisors, No. A-1-CA-36850

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

_ Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 5/20/2019 8:28 AM

we

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

WN

Vv. No. A-1-CA-36850

fa oh me me

THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE GRANT SOIL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT and

ee ee

eH OO CO ~ A

UPPER GILA VALLEY ARROYOS

12

WATERSHED DISTRICT,

Defendants-Appellees.

13
14

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF GRANT COUNTY
J.C. Robinson, District Judge

15
16
17

Keith Duerinck
Claudia Duerinck
Gila, NM

18

Pro Se Appellants

19
20

Norman R. Wheeler
Silver City, NM

2]

22

for Appellees

23

MEMORANDUM OPINION

VANZI, Judge.

—

~]

\O

—
i)

11

12

_—
eo

14

15

16

17

18

19

the district court’s order granting Defendants, the Board of Supervisors of the Grant

Soil and Water Conservation District and Board of Directors of the Upper Gila Valley

_
=)
Net
=)
iv
<
<
Ca
@
bay
Th
_
‘pa!
tat]
ou
S
i?
oc
ms
i
ie]
-
iva
v
=
_
>!
Cc
-
mre
=)
3
—_
ia
=)
cu
na
_
—_
=
pi
an
a
©
_
ot
i
=
=
w~
©
=)
=
ec
—
bate]
a
_
ct
2
—
S
Aicas}

On appeal, Plaintiffs contend broadly that the district court’s order was in error and
specifically that they were entitled to a hearing prior to dismissal. This Court issued
a notice of proposed disposition, proposing to affirm. Plai
in opposition, which we have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we.affirm.

(2} In this Court’s calendar notice, we proposed to affirm based on our
determination that the matter was appropriately heard on the briefs without a hearing.
[CN 4] We also stated that Plaintiffs did not challenge any specific factual or legal
finding, with the exception of challenging the district court’s citation to NMSA 1978,
§ 73-20-36 (2003). [CN 5] We instructed Plaintiffs that we presume correctness in the
district court’s rulings and, in the absence of any challenge to the other independent
grounds on which the district court dismissed, we will hold that those grounds are
sufficient. [CN 5]

3} Intheir memorandum in opposition, Plaintiffs now argue only that there were
errors in the judgment regarding the watershed district addition statute and the statute

of limitations. [MIO 2] We acknowledge Plaintiffs’ contention that the district court

—

14
15
16
17
18

19

for a soil and water conservation district, when a watershed district has its own:

statutory procedures. wo 3-4] Compare § 73-20-36, with NMSA 1978, § 73-20-21

4; Plaintiffs’ argument regarding the statutes of limitations appears to be that they
discovered the alleged historical injury regarding the 1984 addition to the district in
October of 2016,
complaint in May 2017 under NMSA 1978, Section 37-1-7 (1 880). [MIO 5-6]
Plaintiffs supply us with no further explanation of their argument, and specifically
neglect to explain how they demonstrated to the district court that October 2016 is

when they should have known about the 1984 expansion. See McNeill v. Burlington

Res. Oil & Gas Co., 2007-NMCA-024, § 14, 141 N.M. 212, 153 P.3d 46 (stating, in

cere

reference to Section 37-1-7, “[ijn New Mexico, a cause of action arises not
necessarily at the time of injury, but rather at the time a plaintiff knows or should

have known of the claims”). “We will not search the record for facts, arguments, and |

aru

rulings in order to support generalized arguments.” Muse v. Muse, 2009-NMCA-003,
q 72, 145 N.M. 451, 200 P.3d 104. Plaintiffs’ statute of limitations argument is not
developed and does not demonstrate error. See Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. &

— aaa ~ ser n

Fabricating, Inc., 1990-NMSC-100, 8, 111 N.M. 6, 800 P.2d 1063 (stating that the

—

~I

\O

—
oS

11

12

—
ee)

14

15

17

appellant to clearly demonstrate that the trial court erred); Corona v. Corona, 2014-

NMCA-071, § 28, 329 P.3d 701 (“This Court has no duty to review an argument that

{5} Regardless, however, Plaintiffs still have not demonstrated why any of the
other independent grounds for the district court’s dismissal is in error, despite the
calendar notice’s instruction. Plai
the district court’s dismissal due to lack of standing, waiver, and failure to exhaust

administrative remedies. Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to our proposed affirmance on

these alternative grounds constitutes an acceptance of our proposed affirmance on

these grounds. See Frick v. Veazey, 1993-NMCA-119, 4 2, 116 N.M. 246, 861 P.2d

287 (“Failure to file a memorandum in opposition constitutes acceptance of the
disposition proposed in the calendar notice.”); State v. Johnson, 1988-NMCA-029,
q 8, 107 N.M. 356, 758 P.2d 306 (stating that when a case is decided on the summary
calendar, an issue is deemed abandoned when a party fails to respond to the proposed
disposition of that issue). |

{6} _ Based on the foregoing, we therefore affirm.

1 {7} IT IS SO ORDERED.
i
2 3 4| WE CONCUR:
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
5 6|
Julie Vargar
JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge
7. Jacqueline YR. Medina
8 JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge
5