Najibi v. Halliburton Energy ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •      This decision was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see
    Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of non-precedential dispositions. Please also note
    that this electronic decision may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the
    official paper version filed by the Supreme Court.
    1         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
    2 MICHAEL NAJIBI,
    3          Worker-Appellant,
    4 v.                                                                            No. 36,208
    5 HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICE, and
    6 ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.,
    7          Employer/Insurer-Appellees.
    8 APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION
    9 David Skinner, Workers’ Compensation Judge
    10 Michael Najibi
    11 Las Cruces, NM
    12 Pro se Appellant
    13 Butt, Thornton & Baeher PC
    14 M. Scott Owen
    15 Albuquerque, NM
    16 for Appellees
    17                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
    18 GARCIA, Judge.
    19   {1}    Worker-Appellant Michael Najibi (“Worker”) appeals from the workers’
    1 compensation judge’s (“WCJ”) amended compensation order dismissing his
    2 complaint with prejudice. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary
    3 disposition in which we proposed to dismiss. Worker has filed a memorandum in
    4 opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded.
    5   {2}   As we previously observed, the filing of a timely notice of appeal is a
    6 mandatory precondition to this Court’s jurisdiction. In re Yalkut, 2008-NMSC-009,
    7 ¶ 24, 
    143 N.M. 387
    , 
    176 P.3d 1119
    (per curiam). In this case, Worker filed his notice
    8 of appeal nearly three months late. We therefore proposed to dismiss. See, e.g.,
    9 Chavez v. U-Haul Co. of N.M., 1997-NMSC-051, ¶¶ 19-22, 
    124 N.M. 165
    , 
    947 P.2d 10
    122 (declining to hear an appeal filed thirty days late).
    11   {3}   In his memorandum in opposition Worker offers neither any basis for extending
    12 the filing deadline, nor any justification for the delay. [MIO 1-4] Instead, we
    13 understand Worker to invite the Court to consider the merits of the appeal
    14 notwithstanding the untimely filing. [Id.] We decline.
    15   {4}   Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed
    16 summary disposition, we dismiss.
    17   {5}   IT IS SO ORDERED.
    18                                                ________________________________
    19                                                TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
    2
    1 WE CONCUR:
    2 _______________________________
    3 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
    4 _______________________________
    5 HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 36,208

Filed Date: 7/26/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/15/2017