June 12, 2019- Raul A. Cano C. v. Jeffrey Peterson, No. A-1-CA-37848

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

—

WwW

(oe)

10
11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22

Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 6/12/2019 1:22 PM

A. call
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
RAUL A. CANO C.,,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

Vv. No. A-1-CA-37848

JEFFREY PETERSON,
Defendant-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
Carl J. Butkus, District Judge

Raul A. Cano C.
Albuquerque, NM

Pro Se Appellant

Allen Law Firm, LLC
Michelle Maire Lalley Blake

Albuquerque, NM
for Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VANZI, Judge.
41} Plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, appeals the district court’s affirmance of

the metropolitan court’s order of dismissal. This Court issued a notice of proposed
disposition, proposing to affirm. Plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition, which

we have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm.

ark Reynolds

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16
17

2}. Onappeal, Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred by refusing to admit two
documents (a repair order and NADA car values) under exceptions to the hearsay
rule. [DS 2] Our notice proposed to adopt the district court’s recitation of the facts,
the applicable law, and its reasoning and result.

33 In response, Plaintiff has not asserted any new facts, law, or argument. He
simply “ask[s] to be rewarded more money from this matter [and contends] the law
was not applied in the correct way.” [MIO 1] This does not persuade us that our
adoption of the district court’s memorandum opinion, as laid out in our calendar
notice, is incorrect. See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¥ 10, 107 N.M. 421,
759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must
come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of
earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other
grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, J 3, 297 P.3d 374.

{4} Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in our notice, we affirm.

6} ITISSO ORDERED.

Denia

LINDAM. VANZI, Judge

1} WE CONCUR:

5| JEN - ATTREP, Judge