March 11, 2019- Francisco Valenzuela v. Allan D. Snyder, No. A-1-CA-37457

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

11
12

13
14
15
16

17

18

19

20

2]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 3/11/2019 8:47 AM

FRANCISCO VALENZUELA and
RACHEL VALENZUELA, W/k [> |
Mark Reynolds
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v. No. A-1-CA-37457
ALLAN D. SNYDER and

SHERRY L. SNYDER,
Defendants-Appellants.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF ROOSEVELT COUNTY
David Peter Reeb Jr., District Judge

Gary C. Mitchell
Ruidoso, NM

for Appellees
Allan D. Snyder
Sherry L. Snyder
Greeley, CO

Pro Se Appellants

MEMORANDUM OPINION
VANZI, Judge.
413, Defendants, who are self-represented, are appealing from a district court

judgment entering default against them and granting the relief requested in Plaintiffs’

1 quiet title complaint. We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendants
2 have responded with a memorandum in opposition. We affirm.
3 	{2} 	Defendants' dismissal was based on the refusal to engage in discovery. [RP
4 577] 	Our Supreme Court has held that, even where a party violates a court order-	,
5 conduct which, in addition to a discovery violation, constitutes contempt of court-
6 "such discovery sanctions [i.e., dismissal with prejudice or default judgment] are to
7 be imposed only in extreme cases and only upon a clear showing of willfulness or bad
8 faith. 	That principle 	is well-established in this jurisdiction; 	it is 	universally
9 recognized in American jurisprudence; and it is fundamental to the constitutional
10 right of due process." United Nuclear Corp. v. Gen. Atomic Co., 1980-NMSC-094,
11 	,r 396, 96 N.M. 155,629 P.2d 231; see Rule 1-037(B)(2)(d) NMRA (providing that,
12 	in addition to any other discovery sanctions, a district court may treat the failure to
13 	comply with an order providing for the production of discovery as contempt of court).
14 "A finding of willfulness may be based upon either a willful, intentional, and bad
15 	faith attempt to conceal evidence or gross indifference to discovery obligations."
16 Medina v. Found. Reserve Ins. Co., 1994-NMSC-016, ,r 6, 117 N.M. 163, 870 P.2d
17 	125.
18 	{3} 	Here, Defendants refused to engage in discovery, and Plaintiffs requested a
19 default judgment as a sanction. [RP 577] The district court denied Plaintiffs' request,
2

1 but ordered attorney fees and gave Defendants twenty-one days to answer discovery.
2 	[RP 5 77] Almost two months later Plaintiffs again requested a default judgement. [RP
3 577] The district court found it was "obvious" that Defendants' response to the
4 motion indicated that they will not comply with any order directing them to engage
5 in discovery. [RP 577] As such, the district court determined that the willful, bad faith ·
6 threshold had been met. Because this case has the requisite evidence to support the 	,_
7 	United Nuclear standard, our calendar notice proposed to affirm.
8 	{4} 	In their memorandum in opposition, Defendants argue that they should not
9 have been required to engage in discovery, because the complaint should have been
10 dismissed. However, a party is not allowed to ignore orders of a court simply because
11 	they believe the underlying action should have been dismissed-this is not a situation
12 where Defendants asserted that some information should not have been disclosed,
13 	based on privilege or other reasons. Instead, Defendants' remedy was to request
14 dismissal, and then pursue interlocutory review or subsequent direct appeal from the
15 	denial of that order. Because Defendants have essentially conceded the United
16 Nuclear issue, they have not established that the district court erred.
17 	{5} 	For the reasons set forth above, we affirm.
3

; ITISSO ORDERED.

LINDA/M. VANZI, Judge

WE CONCUR:

fhabow Pagers

KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge

p

MEGAN P. DUFFY, ge