{
  "id": 2831578,
  "name": "TELEPHONIC, INC., and Sailor J. Kennedy, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MONTGOMERY PLAZA COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Telephonic, Inc. v. Montgomery Plaza Co.",
  "decision_date": "1975-04-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 1846",
  "first_page": "407",
  "last_page": "410",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "87 N.M. 407"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "534 P.2d 1119"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.",
    "id": 9025,
    "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "77 N.M. 61",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2802354
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/77/0061-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N.M. 802",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2774410
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/85/0802-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 N.M. 697",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2738241
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/79/0697-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 P.2d 599",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "year": 1937,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "22 Cal.App.2d 548",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        6041098
      ],
      "year": 1937,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal-app-2d/22/0548-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 Nev. 468",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Nev.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555746
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1937,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nev/57/0468-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N.M. 201",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2773182
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/85/0201-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N.M. 6",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2772750
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/85/0006-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "455 F.2d 1",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        742651
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/455/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "358 U.S. 133",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        3657510
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1958,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/358/0133-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 P.2d 89",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "year": 1938,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Cal.2d 259",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2224969
      ],
      "year": 1938,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal-2d/11/0259-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "394 F.2d 780",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2153891,
        3578492
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/394/0780-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "129 U.S.App.D.C. 305",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "U.S. App. D.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3578492
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": []
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 F.2d 498",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        496720
      ],
      "year": 1952,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/197/0498-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 N.M. 27",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5321015
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/73/0027-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 405,
    "char_count": 6111,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.827,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.053192443234627e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3744780101079252
    },
    "sha256": "9a7179149824d40dcf8cb51f88bef29c15309652b466d2a623459d7e5e389c5f",
    "simhash": "1:ab42e0be0add0907",
    "word_count": 1005
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:55:50.541053+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "WOOD, C. J., and HERNANDEZ, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "TELEPHONIC, INC., and Sailor J. Kennedy, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MONTGOMERY PLAZA COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nLOPEZ, Judge.\nThe plaintiffs sued the defendant for breach of contract and prayed for compensatory and punitive damages. Notice of dismissal with prejudice was then filed by plaintiffs. Section 21-1-1(41) (a), N.M.S. A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 4). A motion to correct the notice of dismissal because of clerical error was filed. Section 21 \u2014 1\u2014 1(60) (a), N.M.S. A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 4). Answer and counterclaim for malicious prosecution were then filed by the defendant. Plaintiffs next filed a motion to dismiss their own complaint without prejudice and to dismiss defendant\u2019s counterclaim. The lower court dismissed plaintiffs\u2019 complaint without prejudice and dismissed defendant\u2019s counterclaim. Defendant appeals. We affirm and correct the dismissal of the counterclaim to read \u201cwithout prejudice.\u201d\nDefendant has four points for reversal of which his first, relative to Rule 41(a) of the New Mexico Rules of Civil Procedure, supra, is dispositive of this appeal. Rule 41(a), supra, states as follows :\n\u201cRule 41. Dismissal of actions.\n\u201c(a) Voluntary dismissal \u2014 Effect thereof.\n\u201c(1) By Plaintiff \u2014 By Stipulation. Subject to the provisions of Rule 23(c) and of any statute, an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of the court (i) by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service of the answer, or (ii) by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared generally in the action.\n\u201c(2) By Order of Court. Except as provided in paragraph (1) of this subdivision- of this rule, an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff\u2019s instance save upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. If a counterclaim has been pleaded by a defendant prior to the service upon him of the plaintiff\u2019s motion to dismiss, the action shall not be dismissed against the defendant\u2019s objection unless the counterclaim can remain pending for independent adjudication by the court. Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph is without prejudice.\u201d\nThe last motion filed by the plaintiffs was pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), supra. The order of the lower court entered as a result of this motion is the basis for this appeal. The plaintiffs had a right, under subsection (41) (a) (1) (i), supra, before the answer and counterclaim were filed, to dismiss their complaint. The undisputed evidence on the record indicates that the error was \u201cclerical\u201d in that the phrase \u201cwith prejudice\u201d was substituted for \u201cwithout prejudice\u201d at some point between counsel\u2019s dictation of the notice and the final draft. Counsel acknowledges that he did not catch the mistake prior to filing it as typed.\nIf the first notice of dismissal had been correct, a dismissal without prejudice of the plaintiffs\u2019 suit would have left the parties in a situation the same as though the suit had never been filed. See McCuistion v. McCuistion, 73 N.M. 27, 385 P.2d 357 (1963). Upon a voluntary dismissal, the answer of the defendant would have been vitiated and the counterclaim would have annulled. See A. B. Dick Co. v. Marr, 197 F.2d 498 (2d Cir. 1952); Ratner v. Bakery and Confectionery Workers Int. U., 129 U.S.App.D.C. 305, 394 F.2d 780 (1968).\nAfter the filing of the erroneous notice of dismissal with prejudice, the plaintiffs filed a motion pursuant to Rule 60(a) of the New Mexico Rules of Civil Procedure, supra, to correct the notice. Both the notice of dismissal with prejudice and this motion were filed before defendant\u2019s answer and counterclaim. Two affidavits were attached to the Rule 60(a), supra, motion stating that the plaintiffs\u2019 attorney had been instructed by plaintiffs to dismiss without prejudice and that the attorney dictated the notice to read \u201cwithout prejudice\u201d, that it was erroneously transcribed by a secretary as \u201cwith prejudice\u201d, and subsequently filed as such in the district court. This explanation is not disputed by the defendant.\nWhen the facts upon which the court acts on a motion to correct a clerical error are undisputed and only one conclusion can be drawn from them, we are not bound by the order made below. Estate of Burnett, 11 Cal.2d 259, 79 P.2d 89 (1938).\nUnder Rule 60(a), supra, courts have the power and the duty to correct clerical errors in orders which are issued due to inadvertence or mistake. American Trucking Assos. v. Frisco Transp. Co., 358 U.S. 133, 79 S.Ct. 170, 3 L.Ed.2d 172 (1958). Compare United States v. Kenner, 455 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1972).\nWe conclude, based upon the uncontradicted evidence of the record, that the lower court not only had the right but the duty to correct the clerical mistake in plaintiffs\u2019 original notice of dismissal with prejudice to read \u201cwithout prejudice.\u201d Compare Herrera v. Springer, 85 N.M. 6, 508 P.2d 1303 (Ct.App.1973), reversed on other grounds, 85 N.M. 201, 510 P.2d 1072 (1973). See Silva v. Second Judicial Dist., 57 Nev. 468, 66 P.2d 422 (1937). See also E. Clemens Horst Co. v. Federal Mutual Liability Ins. Co., 22 Cal.App.2d 548, 71 P.2d 599 (1937).\nWe believe that the lower court erred in not granting the plaintiffs\u2019 motion to correct the notice of dismissal with prejudice.\nThe lower court\u2019s order dismissing plaintiffs\u2019 complaint is affirmed, as reaching the right result for the wrong reason, but to make clear the nature of the dismissal of the counterclaim, we amend the order dismissing defendant\u2019s counterclaim to read \u201cwithout prejudice.\u201d Scott v. Murphy Corporation, 79 N.M. 697, 448 P.2d 803 (1968); H. T. Coker Const. Co. v. Whitfield Transp., Inc., 85 N.M. 802, 518 P.2d 782 (Ct.App.1974). See Gonzales v. Oil, Chemical and Atomic Works Int. U., 77 N.M. 61, 419 P.2d 257 (1966).\nIt is so ordered.\nWOOD, C. J., and HERNANDEZ, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "LOPEZ, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George A. Dubois, Bruce R. Muir, Branch, Dickson, Dubois & Wilson, P. A., Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.",
      "Quincy D. Adams, Adams & Foley, Albuquerque, for plaintiffs-appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "534 P.2d 1119\nTELEPHONIC, INC., and Sailor J. Kennedy, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MONTGOMERY PLAZA COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 1846.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nApril 16, 1975.\nGeorge A. Dubois, Bruce R. Muir, Branch, Dickson, Dubois & Wilson, P. A., Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.\nQuincy D. Adams, Adams & Foley, Albuquerque, for plaintiffs-appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0407-01",
  "first_page_order": 433,
  "last_page_order": 436
}