Singh v. United States, Elephant Butte Irrigation Dist.

This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 SAMMIE SINGH, SR., SAMMIE H. SINGH, JR., 3 ED PROVENIENCE, LUPE GARCIA, JOHNNY DIAZ, 4 AND JOHN FLEMING, 5 Claimants/Defendants-Appellants, 6 vs. No. 33,274 7 UNITED STATES, ELEPHANT BUTTE 8 IRRIGATION DISTRICT, AND CITY OF LAS CRUCES, 9 Defendants-Appellees. 10 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 11 James J. Wechsler, District Judge 12 Robert S. Simon 13 Albuquerque, NM 14 for Appellants 15 Appellate Section, Environment and Natural Resources Divsion 16 U.S. Department of Justice 1 Matthew Littleton 2 Washington, DC 3 for Appellee United States 4 Law office of Steven L. Hernandez PC 5 Steven L. Hernandez 6 Samantha R. Barncastle 7 Las Cruces, NM 8 for Appellee Elephant Butte Irrigation District 9 Stein & Brockmann PA 10 Jay F. Stein 11 Santa Fe, NM 12 for Appellee City of Las Cruces 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 DL Sanders, Chief Counsel, Special Assistant Attorney General 15 Francis L. Reckard, Special Assistant Attorney General 16 Laurie A. Knowles, Special Assistant Attorney General 17 Richard A. Allen, Special Assistant Attorney General 18 Santa Fe, NM 19 for Appellees 20 MEMORANDUM OPINION 21 HANISEE, Judge. 22 {1} Appellants appeal from the district court’s denial of their motion to designate 23 a new stream system issue in the Lower Rio Grande Adjudication to adjudicate pre- 24 1906 claims to water, storage, and diversion rights in the Lower Rio Grande. [DS 2; [2] 1 RP 9, 67] This Court issued a calendar notice proposing summary dismissal of the 2 appeal. Appellants have filed a memorandum in opposition to this Court’s notice of 3 proposed disposition. Appellees United States, Elephant Butte Irrigation District, and 4 State of New Mexico each filed a memorandum in support of this Court’s notice of 5 proposed disposition. Having duly considered each of these filings, we dismiss. 6 {2} In our calendar notice, we proposed to dismiss for lack of a final, appealable 7 order. [CN 4] Appellants’ memorandum in opposition contains three broad 8 contentions, only one of which directly addresses our proposed disposition. We focus, 9 then, on Appellants’ argument that the district court’s order denying their motion to 10 designate a stream system issue was a final, appealable order because it “finally 11 resolved and denied [Appellants’] opportunity to set a stream issue.” [MIO 15] 12 {3} In our calendar notice, we recognized that this Court’s jurisdiction lies from 13 final, appealable orders. [CN 2] See Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison, 1992-NMSC- 14 005, ¶ 14, 113 N.M. 231 , 824 P.2d 1033 ; see also Montoya v. Anaconda Mining Co., [15] 1981-NMCA-113 , ¶ 20, 97 N.M. 1 , 635 P.2d 1323 (observing that an appellate court 16 will raise jurisdictional questions on its own motion), overruled on other grounds as 17 recognized by San Juan 1990-A., L.P. v. El Paso Prod. Co., 2002-NMCA-041 , 132 18 N.M. 73 , 43 P.3d 1083 . Generally, an order or judgment is not considered final unless 19 all issues of law and fact have been determined and the case disposed of by the district [3] 1 court to the fullest extent possible. See Kelly Inn, 1992-NMSC-005 , ¶ 14. In City of 2 Albuquerque v. Sanchez, 1992-NMCA-038 , ¶ 9, 113 N.M. 721 , 832 P.2d 412 , we 3 noted in determining the practical finality of an order that “the judge’s order fully 4 disposed of all issues between the parties that were brought before the judge.” 5 {4} In this case, the district court’s order denying Appellants’ motion to designate 6 a stream system issue did not determine the rights of the parties on the merits, leaving 7 those for future determination in the course of the water adjudication. As we stated in 8 our calendar notice, the practical effect of the district court’s denial is that instead of 9 having their claims heard in an expedited fashion as a stream system issue, Appellants 10 will have to pursue their claims through the standard sub-file proceedings. [CN 3] 11 Appellants apparently recognize this fact as well, as they state in their memorandum 12 in opposition that a dismissal of their appeal would “relegate [Appellants’] [c]laim to 13 sub-file proceedings” and “their claims will not be appealable until all sub-file and 14 inter-se proceeding[s] are completed.” [MIO 23] 15 {5} While Appellants continue to argue that their claims should be heard as a stream 16 system issue and not as a standard sub-file, we remain unconvinced that the district 17 court’s order in this case fully disposed of all the issues between the parties. This is 18 particularly true given Appellants’ statement that “the issue [of] whether [Appellants] 19 are entitled to senior priority to some or all of the project rights for the LRG is an [4] 1 issue that arrived at this Court independently [through an appeal from a denial of 2 summary judgment in Stream System Issue 104 [MIO Ex. C]] of [Appellants’] appeal 3 in this case.” [MIO 22] Thus, it appears that despite the district court’s order denying 4 Appellants’ motion, Appellants are still actively working within the water adjudication 5 process to vindicate their claims. 6 {6} Appellants argue that dismissal of the present appeal will “eliminate for decades 7 the ability of [Appellants] to seek redress for their collective [r]ights.” [MIO 23] 8 Further, Appellants claim “irreparable harm” from the “delay [in] the determination 9 of [Appellants’] [c]laim . . . .” [MIO 28] However, we note that Appellants have not 10 provided this Court with authority to support their argument that either the passage of 11 time or irreparable harm somehow converts a non-final order into a final one. Where 12 a party cites no authority to support an argument, we may assume no such authority 13 exists. In re Adoption of Doe, 1984-NMSC-024 , ¶ 2, 100 N.M. 764 , 676 P.2d 1329 . 14 Therefore, we remain unconvinced that our proposed disposition was incorrect. 15 {7} To the extent that Appellants’ remaining contentions raise issues regarding the 16 merits of their motion to designate a stream system issue and the merits of their claims 17 more generally, we hold that we do not have jurisdiction to consider those matters 18 given the lack of a final, appealable order in this case. [5] 1 {8} For these reasons, and those in our calendar notice, we dismiss the appeal for 2 lack of a final, appealable order. 3 {9} IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 _______________________________ 5 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 6 WE CONCUR: 7 __________________________________ 8 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 9 __________________________________ 10 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge