Motion For Stay Argument

Summary

In New Mexico, a motion in opposition can be argued as a motion for stay if it seeks to halt a writ of execution, even if not explicitly labeled as such. The absence of a bond does not negate the intent to act as a stay under Rule 12-207(B) NMRA. Additionally, subsequent orders do not necessarily invalidate the original orders role in this context. If discovery rules were not properly enforced before a summary judgment, an appeal can request remand to ensure fair adjudication.

Full Conversation

help me answer this please it's part of a broader motion: Their other follow up: *. If Plaintiff-Appellant Mauro Nava (“Appellant” or “Nava”) is arguing, via his mere attachment to his Motion for Stay the District Court’s November *, * Order Denying Motion in Opposition to Application for Writ of Execution, that said Order should constitute a denial of an application for stay sufficient to enable him to file a motion pursuant to Rule *- *(B) NMRA, such an argument should not be persuasive to the Court because Nava’s Motion in Opposition to Application for Writ of Execution (“Motion in Opposition”), which was filed in the District Court on July *, *, was not a motion for stay.
Mauro, from what I understand, you need to counter the argument that your Motion in Opposition was not a motion for stay. Here’s a potential response:
Response:
The Appellant respectfully disagrees. While the Motion in Opposition was not explicitly labeled as a "motion for stay," it effectively sought similar relief by contesting the writ of execution, thereby inherently seeking to stay the enforcement. As such, the District Court’s denial of the Motion in Opposition should be construed as a denial of a motion for stay, meeting the requirements under Rule *-*(B) NMRA.
Does that help, or is there any other part you need assistance with?
yes! here is the last part of their motion: *. Rather, as demonstrated by the very title of the Motion in Opposition, the arguments made therein, and the Affidavits filed therewith, it was a motion arguing that the Writ of Execution sought by the Appellee could not issue because Nava had allegedly not been served with a copy of the Appellee’s Application for same. *. Further, the hallmark of a proper (district court level) motion to stay judgment pending appeal, per Rule *-*(D) NMRA, is the giving of a bond. However, no bond was given with, or even discussed by, the Motion in Opposition.
Response:
The Appellant acknowledges the distinction but maintains that the Motion in Opposition effectively sought to halt the issuance of the Writ of Execution, which qualifies as seeking a stay. Additionally, the absence of a bond does not negate the substantive intent of the motion to act as a stay under Rule *-*(B) NMRA.
Do you need assistance with any other part of the motion?
*. Indeed, at no time in the last year that this Appeal has been pending has Nava ever offered to give a bond to the District Court.* *. Finally, the District Court’s November *, * Order Denying Motion in Opposition to Application for Writ of Execution cannot constitute a denial of an application for stay sufficient to enable Nava to file a motion pursuant to Rule *-*(B) NMRA because it was effectively overturned by the District Court’s December *, * Order Quashing Writ of Execution.
Response:
The Appellant asserts that the Motion in Opposition sought to halt the Writ of Execution, qualifying as a motion for stay. The absence of a bond does not diminish this intent. Additionally, the December *, * Order Quashing Writ of Execution does not negate the November *, * Order's role in this context.
Do you need assistance with anything else?
Can you help me write a response motion, also keep in mind that my case is on the appeals court because I wanted to get remanded to the lower court, a summary judgement was issue without the discovery rules being properly enforced
Sure, Mauro! Here's a concise response for your motion to the appeals court:
---
Response Motion
Appellant: Mauro Nava
Case No.: [Your Case Number]
Court: [Appeals Court Name]
---
I. Introduction
Appellant Mauro Nava respectfully requests this Court to remand the case to the lower court due to the improper enforcement of discovery rules prior to the issuance of the summary judgment.
---
II. Argument
*. Improper Enforcement of Discovery Rules
- The District Court issued a summary judgment without ensuring that discovery rules were properly followed.
- Appellant was denied the opportunity to gather essential evidence through discovery, which is critical for a fair adjudication.
*. Motion in Opposition as a Motion for Stay
- Although not labeled as a "motion for stay," the Motion in Opposition sought to halt the Writ of Execution, inherently seeking a stay.
- The substantive intent of the motion aligns with the requirements under Rule *-*(B) NMRA, despite the absence of a bond.
*. Impact of Subsequent Orders
- The December *, * Order Quashing Writ of Execution does not negate the effect ofthe November *, * Order Denying Motion in Opposition within the context of Rule *-*(B) NMRA.
---
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Appellant respectfully requests the Appeals Court to remand the case to the lower court to ensure proper enforcement of discovery rules and fair adjudication.
---
Respectfully submitted,
Mauro Nava
---
Does this cover what you need, or is there any specific part you would like to adjust or expand upon?