Miller v. Thi NM at Alameda

1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 2 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 3 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 4 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 5 not include the filing date. 6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 7 DARIA M. MILLER, 8 Plaintiff-Appellant, 9 v. NO. 29,459 10 THI OF NEW MEXICO AT THE 11 VILLAGE AT ALAMEDA, LLC, 12 AMBERCARE HOSPICE, INC., 13 and LEIGH ANGELLIS, 14 Defendant-Appellee. 15 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANDOVAL COUNTY 16 Louis P. McDonald, District Judge 17 Michael D. Armstrong 18 Albuquerque, NM 19 for Appellant 20 Jennifer Anderson 21 Albuquerque, NM 22 Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk PA 23 Greg Gambill 24 Albuquerque, NM 25 Cuddy & McCarthy, LLP 26 Albuquerque, NM 1 for Appellees Ambercare Hospice and Leigh Angellis 2 George R. McFall 3 Albuquerque, NM 4 for Appellee Thi of NM at the Village of Alameda 5 MEMORANDUM OPINION 6 VIGIL, Judge. 7 Plaintiff appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in 8 favor of Defendants Leigh Angelliss and Ambercare Hospice, Inc. Persuaded by 9 Plaintiff’s docketing statement that the district court applied an incorrect legal 10 standard to Plaintiff’s claim for tortious interference with contract, we issued a 11 notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to summarily reverse and 12 remand. Neither Defendant Leigh Angellis nor Defendant Ambercare Hospice, 13 Inc., have filed a response to our notice, and the time for doing so has expired. 14 “Failure to file a memorandum in opposition constitutes acceptance of the 15 disposition proposed in the calendar notice.” Frick v. Veazey, 116 N.M. 246, 247 , [16] 861 P.2d 287, 288 (Ct. App. 1993). Therefore, for the reasons set forth in our 17 notice, we reverse the order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants 18 Leigh Angellis and Ambercare Hospice, Inc. We remand for the district court to [2] 1 apply the standards for tortious interference with contract by improper means 2 articulated in Zarr v. Washington Tru Solutions, LLC, 2009-NMCA-050, ¶ 11 , 146 3 N.M. 274 , 208 P.3d 919 (overruling Los Alamos National Bank v. Martinez 4 Surveying Servs., LLC, 2006-NMCA-081 , 140 N.M. 41 , 139 P.3d 201 ). 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. [6] 7 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 8 WE CONCUR: [9] 10 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge [11] 12 ROBERT E. ROBLES, Judge