January 7, 2020- Cheryl M. Cummings v. Jessyca Cummings, No. A-1-CA-37569

Corrections to this opinion 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 is updated accordingly in Odyssey.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO	1
CHERYL M. CUMMINGS,	2
Petitioner-Appellant,	3
v. 	No. A-1-CA-37569	4
JESSYCA CUMMINGS,	5
Respondent-Appellee.	6
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY	7
Jane C. Levy, District Judge	8
Law Office of Augustine M. Rodriguez,
Augustine M. Rodriquez
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellant	9
Robynn Sena Dixon	10
Albuquerque, NM	11
for Appellee	12
MEMORANDUM OPINION	13
VARGAS, Judge.	14
{1} 	Petitioner appeals from the district court’s memorandum order denying her	15
motion to reconsider and denying her visitation with her grandson. In this Court’s	16
notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to summarily affirm. Respondent and	17
Petitioner each filed memoranda in response, which we have duly considered.	18
Unpersuaded by Petitioner’s memorandum in opposition, we affirm.	19
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 1/7/2020 9:05 AM

2
{2} 	In her memorandum in opposition, Petitioner continues to argue that the	1
district court erred in denying her visitation rights because (a) the district court did	2
not take the best interests of the child into consideration because it failed to “take	3
. . . the appropriate steps to verify offers of proof by Respondent,” appoint a guardian	4
ad litem or a Rule 11-706 expert, or require an in camera interview with the child;	5
(b) Respondent’s offer of proof as to the child’s preferences was not, in fact, made	6
“without objection”; and (c) ascertaining the child’s opinions first hand would not	7
infringe upon Respondent’s parental rights, so failing to do so was error. Petitioner	8
additionally raises a new argument in her memorandum in opposition that she should	9
not be required to pay certain of Respondent’s attorney fees. We construe the	10
addition of this latter argument as a motion to amend. See Rule 12-210 (D)(2)	11
NMRA (stating that “[t]he parties shall not argue issues that are not contained in . . .	12
the docketing statement[, but that t] he Court may, for good cause shown, permit the	13
appellant to amend the docketing statement” and that “[t]he appellant may combine	14
a motion to amend the docketing statement . . . with a memorandum in opposition”).	15
{3} 	In order for this Court to grant a motion to amend the docketing statement, the	16
movant must meet certain criteria that establishes good cause for our allowance of	17
such amendment. See State v. Moore, 1989-NMCA-073, ¶¶ 41-42, 109 N.M. 119,	18
782 P.2d 91, superseded by rule on other grounds as recognized by State v. Salgado,	19
1991-NMCA-044, ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 537, 817 P.2d 730; State v. Rael, 1983-NMCA-	20

3
081, ¶¶ 15-16, 100 N.M. 193, 668 P.2d 309. The essential requirements to show	1
good cause for our allowance of an amendment to an appellant’s docketing statement	2
are that (1) the motion be timely, (2) the new issue sought to be raised was either (a)	3
properly preserved below or (b) allowed to be raised for the first time on appeal, and	4
(3) the issues raised are viable. See Moore, 1989-NMCA-073, ¶ 42.	5
{4} 	Petitioner cites to no authority and presents no new facts or arguments in her	6
memorandum in opposition that persuade this Court that our proposed summary	7
disposition was incorrect. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124	8
N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar	9
cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point	10
out errors in fact or law.”); State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M.	11
421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice	12
must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the	13
repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by	14
statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d	15
374. Moreover, with regard to Petitioner’s argument regarding attorney fees, she has	16
failed to cite any authority or explain why the district court’s award of attorney fees	17
is erroneous as a matter of law. See Curry v. Great Nw. Ins. Co., 2014-NMCA-031,	18
¶ 28, 320 P.3d 482 (“Where a party cites no authority to support an argument, we	19
may assume no such authority exists.”); Corona v. Corona, 2014-NMCA-071, ¶ 28,	20

4
329 P.3d 701 (“This Court has no duty to review an argument that is not adequately	1
developed.”); see also Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, 2013-NMSC-040, ¶ 70,	2
309 P.3d 53 (“We will not review unclear arguments, or guess at what a party’s	3
arguments might be.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)).	4
We therefore consider Petitioner’s issue on attorney fees non-viable, and we deny	5
the motion to amend. See Moore, 1989-NMCA-073, ¶¶ 42-43.	6
{5} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and	7
herein, we affirm.	8
{6} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.	9
______________________________	10
JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge	11
WE CONCUR:	12
_________________________________	13
J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge	14
___________________________________________	15
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge	16