Motion to Reconsider/Vacate (Summary Judgment) in New Mexico

Background

“[A] trial court has authority to reconsider its judgment, on motion by a party or on its own motion, provided the court does so within thirty days.” (Matter of Estate of Keeney (1995) 121 N.M. 58, 60 citing NMSA 1978, § 39-1-1 [Repl.Pamp. 1991]; Desjardin v. Albuquerque Nat'l Bank (1979) 93 N.M. 89, 90.)

“However, the question of whether [a reviewing court] may review documents submitted between the time of summary judgment and the time of reconsideration of summary judgment is one that has not previously been decided by our appellate courts.” (Matter of Estate of Keeney, supra, 121 N.M. at 60.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

Timing of the Motion

“A motion for reconsideration of summary Judgment is ‘treated as either a motion to alter or amend’ [the judgment] under Rule 59(e) or a motion for ‘relief from judgment’ under Rule 60(b).” (Id.) “Because Rule 59(e) motions must be served within ten days of the entry of judgment, a motion for reconsideration filed within ten days is treated as a Rule 59(e) motion.” (Matter of Estate of Keeney (1995) 121 N.M. 58, 60 citing Rules 59(e) and 60(b).)

Indeed, “for purposes of deciding whether to consider [...] affidavits in [submitted for summary judgment], [courts] treat the motion for reconsideration as a motion under SCRA 1986, 1-059(E) [Repl. 1992], the New Mexico equivalent of Federal Rule 59(e). ” (Id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“A trial court has considerable discretion to reconsider summary judgment under Rule 59(e).” (Id., at 60-61 [internal citation omitted].)

“There is no abuse of discretion for the trial court to consider new material as part of a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59 as long as the delay in presenting the new material is not just for strategic reasons, and its relevance outweighs any prejudice.” (Id.)

“If the trial court does consider the new material and still grants summary judgment, ‘the appellate court may review all of the materials de novo.’” (Id.)

The Court’s Decision

“A district court acts within its discretion to refuse to consider additional materials on a motion to reconsider ‘where the party opposing summary judgment presented evidence for the first time in a motion to reconsider even though the evidence was available at the time the party filed its response to the motion.’” (Bloodworth v. Staerkel, No. A-1-CA-38081, at *10 [N.M. Ct. App. May 18, 2022] citing Wilde v. Westland Dev. Co., 2010-NMCA-085, ¶ 35; see also Nance v. L.J. Dolloff Assocs., Inc., 2006-NMCA-012, ¶ 24, 138 N.M. 851.)

The New Mexico Court of Appeals has consistently held that has held “a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reconsider that was ‘merely a restatement of the arguments [the moving party] had already advanced.’” (Griego v. Presbyterian Healthcare Servs., No. A-1-CA-38199, at *8-9 [N.M. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2021] citing Unified Contractor, 2017-NMCA-060, ¶ 77 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted); see also Deaton v. Gutierrez, 2004-NMCA-043, ¶ 10, 135 N.M. 423, 89 P.3d 672 [concluding, in light of the fact that the “motion for reconsideration was merely a restatement of the arguments [the moving party] had already advanced,” the trial court “had good reason for denying the motion in its entirety.”])

“Additionally, when an argument that could have been raised at an earlier stage of the proceedings is raised for the first time in a motion to reconsider, [the Appellate] Court has held there is no abuse of discretion in rejecting such an argument.” (Id.)