May 18, 2020- Reuben Galvan v. Norman Dansereau, No. A-1-CA-38147

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
REUBEN GALVAN,	2
Petitioner-Appellant,	3
v. 	NO. A-1-CA-38147	4
NORMAN DANSEREAU, Personal	5
Representative,	6
Respondent-Appellee,	7
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF	8
GILLES L. DELISLE, Deceased.	9
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY	10
Marci E. Beyer, District Judge	11
Reuben Galvan	12
Las Cruces, NM	13
Pro Se Appellant	14
Gluth Law, LLC	15
Alan D. Gluth	16
Las Cruces, NM	17
for Appellee	18
MEMORANDUM OPINION	19
VANZI, Judge.	20
{1} 	Petitioner appeals following the district court’s final order granting summary	21
judgment in favor of Respondent and dismissing Petitioner’s putative claim against	22
the Estate of Delisle. [RP 286-88] On March 31, 2020, this Court, having reviewed	23
Petitioner’s docketing statement, issued a notice proposing to summarily affirm. On	24
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 5/18/2020 9:17 AM

2
April 17, 2020, Respondent timely filed a combined memorandum in support of our	1
proposed summary disposition and motion to dismiss this appeal on the ground that	2
Petitioner’s docketing statement was filed out of time. Respondent’s motion to	3
dismiss is DENIED.	4
{2} 	With respect to the merits of this appeal, we note that Petitioner failed to	5
timely file a memorandum in opposition. See Rule 12-210(D)(2) NMRA (providing	6
a 20-day period for a response to a calendar notice to be filed). Instead, on May 4,	7
2020, Petitioner filed a motion for extension of time. Petitioner’s motion fails to	8
meet Rule 12-309(C) NMRA, requiring Petitioner, prior to filing, to “attempt to	9
ascertain whether the motion will be opposed by any other party,” and to recite in	10
the motion “whether, on inquiry by counsel for the movant, any other party has	11
expressed an intention to oppose or not oppose the motion or why the position of	12
another party was not obtained after reasonable effort.” Rule 12-309(C). Petitioner’s	13
motion for extension of time is therefore DENIED.	14
{3} 	We note that Petitioner filed a copy of his memorandum in opposition along	15
with his motion for extension of time. However, even if this Court were to accept	16
Petitioner’s submission as timely, we conclude that Petitioner’s memorandum in	17
opposition is unpersuasive. Petitioner’s memorandum generally repeats, without	18
adequate supporting authority, arguments presented in his docketing statement. See	19
State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating	20

3
that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and	1
specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments	2
does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated	3
in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. Moreover, to the extent	4
Petitioner’s memorandum is responsive to this Court’s calendar notice, it fails to	5
clearly point out errors in fact or law. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036,	6
¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in	7
summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed	8
disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”). We therefore rely on the	9
reasoning contained in our notice of proposed disposition and affirm the district	10
court.	11
{4} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.	12
_________________________________	13
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge	14
WE CONCUR:	15
_________________________________	16
J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge	17
_________________________________	18
MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge	19