September 8, 2020- Lucille Mungia v. Ringing Bells LLC, No. A-1-CA-38580

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with
NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly in
Odyssey.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO	1
LUCILLE MUNGIA,	2
Plaintiff-Appellant,	3
v. 	No. A-1-CA-38580	4
RINGING BELLS LLC,	5
Defendant-Appellee.	6
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY	7
William G.W. Shoobridge, District Judge	8
Lucille Mungia	9
Hobbs, NM	10
Pro Se Appellant	11
Law Offices of Daniel G. Acosta	12
Lynne M. Brooks	13
Las Cruces, NM	14
for Appellee	15
MEMORANDUM OPINION	16
VARGAS, Judge.	17
{1} 	Plaintiff has appealed following the entry of an award of summary judgment	18
in Defendant’s favor. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition	19
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 9/8/2020 10:54 AM

2
in which we proposed to affirm. Plaintiff has filed a memorandum in opposition. After	1
due consideration, we remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm.	2
{2} 	As an initial matter we note that, like the docketing statement, the memorandum	3
in opposition fails to identify issues with specificity. However, to the extent that	4
Plaintiff may challenge the propriety of the underlying disposition, we remain	5
unpersuaded that the district court erred. As we previously observed, [CN 2-4]	6
Defendant submitted a well-supported motion for summary judgment, which Plaintiff	7
was obligated to refute in a timely and intelligible fashion. See Rule 1-056(E) NMRA.	8
In light of Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the motion for summary judgment, we	9
perceive no error. See Freeman v. Fairchild, 2018-NMSC-023, ¶ 21, 416 P.3d 264	10
(“[T]he district court may grant summary judgment if the moving party has made a	11
prima facie case of entitlement to summary judgment and the non-moving party has	12
failed to respond despite adequate notice and opportunity to be heard.”); see also Rule	13
1-007.1(D) NMRA (“If a party fails to file a response [to a motion] within the	14
prescribed time period the court may rule with or without a hearing.”).	15
{3} 	In her memorandum in opposition Plaintiff appears to contend that there was	16
some sort of improper communication between opposing counsel, the attorney she	17
previously retained, and/or herself. [MIO 33] However, we fail to see how this could	18
be said to bear upon the propriety of the disposition rendered below. In any event, the	19

3
argument is both incomprehensible and unsupported by citation to illuminating	1
authority of any kind. We therefore decline to consider it further. See Headley v.	2
Morgan Mgmt. Corp., 2005-NMCA-045, ¶ 15, 137 N.M. 339, 110 P.3d 1076	3
(explaining that New Mexico courts “will not review unclear arguments, or guess at	4
what [litigants’] arguments might be”).	5
{4} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed summary	6
disposition and above, we affirm.	7
{5} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.	8
9
JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge	10
WE CONCUR:	11
12
JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge	13
14
BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Judge	15