N.M. R. Civ. P. Dist. Ct. 1-083
N.M. R. Civ. P. Dist. Ct. 1-083
Committee commentary. - Paragraph B exempts technical standards adopted by a district court for electronic filing pursuant to Rule 1-005.2 NMRA of these rules.
ANNOTATIONS The 2016 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 16-8300-015, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after December 31, 2016, provided for the periodic review of local rules every two years and for recommendations to the Supreme Court for any proposed changes that may be warranted; in Paragraph A, in the introductory paragraph, after "Each district court", deleted "by action of the judge of such court, or of a majority of the judges thereof", after "chair of the Supreme Court's", deleted "Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts" and added "Local Rules", after "rules or statutes. The", deleted "civil procedure", and after "Following", deleted "such" and added "the"; in Subparagraph A(3), after "published", deleted "in the bar bulletin or in the judicial volumes of the NMSA 1978" and added "in accordance with Rule 23-106(L)(9) and (10) NMRA"; in Paragraph C, after "NMRA", deleted "of these rules"; and added Paragraph D. The 1998 amendment, effective November 10, 1998, substituted "Local rules" for "Rules by district courts" in the catchline; rewrote Paragraph A; added present Paragraph B; and redesignated former Paragraph B as Paragraph C, adding "and the provisions of Rule 1-005.2 of these rules" at the end. The 1997 amendment, effective July 1, 1997, designated the existing introductory language as Paragraph A and inserted the paragraph heading, designated former Paragraphs A and B as Subparagraphs A(1) and A(2), and added Paragraph B. The 1991 amendment, effective for local district court rules governing practice and procedure in civil cases which are adopted or amended on or after September 1, 1991, in the introductory paragraph, added the third, sixth, and seventh sentences and, in the fifth sentence, substituted "one hundred twenty (120) days" for "ninety (90) days" and "unless the provisions of this rule have been complied with and the rule" for "until filed with the clerk of the supreme court"; and added Paragraphs A and B. Compiler's notes. - This rule, together with 38-1-1 and 38-1-2 NMSA 1978, is deemed to have superseded 105-1005, C.S. 1929. The Rules of Civil Procedure prevail over conflicting local rules. H-B-S Partnership v. Aircoa Hospitality Services, Inc., 2008-NMCA-013, 143 N.M. 404, 176 P.3d 1136. This rule authorizes district courts to establish rules of practice. Beall v. Reidy, 1969-NMSC-092, 80 N.M. 444, 457 P.2d 376. By means of this rule the supreme court has delegated to the district courts the power to promulgate rules, not inconsistent with the supreme court's regarding practice in the local courts. Spingola v. Spingola, 1978-NMSC-045, 91 N.M. 737, 580 P.2d 958. Trial courts have inherent power to alter local rules or make exceptions to their application when the ends of justice and efficient administration so require, but the failure to follow local rules cannot be upheld if such action is to the substantial prejudice of one of the parties to an action. James v. Brumlop, 1980-NMCA-043, 94 N.M. 291, 609 P.2d 1247. Trial courts have supervisory control over their dockets as recognized by this rule. Birdo v. Rodriguez, 1972-NMSC-062, 84 N.M. 207, 501 P.2d 195. Division of work load allowed. - District Court Rule 8 which provided in part that "the assignment of cases to the several judges of the district will be varied in accordance with the work load" does not conflict with any statute or rule of the supreme court. Atol v. Schifani, 1971-NMCA-153, 83 N.M. 316, 491 P.2d 533. Involuntary commitment hearings at commitment facilities. - Absent a showing by a "developmentally disabled" person that his substantive rights have in any way been abridged if his involuntary commitment hearing is not held at the county seat, the district court is not precluded from adopting the practice of holding such hearings at the commitment facility when, in its discretion, such practice would better serve the public convenience. 1979 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 79-20. Authority of courts to affect substantive rights limited. - This section confers no authority upon the district court to limit the extent of the substantive right to disqualify judges by rule. Beall v. Reidy, 1969-NMSC-092, 80 N.M. 444, 457 P.2d 376. Law reviews. - For note, "Guidelines for Modification of Child Support Awards: Spingola v. Spingola," see 9 N.M.L. Rev. 201 (1978-79). For article, "Separation of Powers and the Judicial Rule-Making Power in New Mexico: The Need for Prudential Restraints," see 15 N.M.L. Rev. 407 (1985). Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. - 20 Am. Jur. 2d Courts §22 et seq. Violation of court rule by trial court as ground for new trial or reversal, 23 A.L.R. 52. Power of court to prescribe rules of pleading, practice or procedure, 110 A.L.R. 22, 158 A.L.R. 705. Construction and application of statutory requirement or rule of court that action should be brought to trial within specified time, 112 A.L.R. 1158. Power of court to adopt general rule requiring pretrial conference, 2 A.L.R.2d 1061. Court rules limiting amount of contingent fees or otherwise imposing conditions on contingent fee contracts, 77 A.L.R.2d 411. Constitutionality and construction of statute or court rule relating to alternate or additional jurors or substitution of jurors during trial, 84 A.L.R.2d 1288, 15 A.L.R.4th 1127, 88 A.L.R.4th 711. Consent as ground of vacating judgment, or granting new trial, in civil case, after expiration of term or time prescribed by statute or rules of court, 3 A.L.R.3d 1191. Validity and effect of local district court rules providing for use of alternative dispute resolution procedures as pretrial settlement mechanisms, 86 A.L.R. Fed. 211. 21 C.J.S. Courts §§ 124 to 134.