Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Kerry Kruskal, Petitioner v. Alan Maestas, et al.

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix A: Eighth Judicial District

Court, State of New Mexico, County of

Taos, Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion

for Judgment as Matter of Law, October

2, 2025...... ;....................................................................... 1A

Appendix B: Supreme Court of the State of

New Mexico, Order, September 16, 2025................ 15A

Appendix C: Supreme Court of the State of

New Mexico, Order, August 25, 2025...................... 17A

Appendix D: Court of Appeals of the State

of New Mexico, Memorandum Opinion,

June 3, 2025.................................................................. 19A

Appendix E: Court of Appeals of the State

of New Mexico, Memorandum Opinion,

June 3, 2025.................................................................. 30A

Appendix F: Court of Appeals of the State

of New Mexico, Memorandum Opinion, April

3, 2024............................................................................ 42A

Appendix G: Court of Appeals of the State

of New Mexico, Memorandum Opinion,

April 3, 2024.................................................................. 52A

Appendix H: Court of Appeals of the State

of New Mexico, Memorandum Opinion,

June 27, 2023............................................................... 63A

Appendix I: State of New Mexico, County of

Taos, Eighth Judicial District Court, Omnibus

Order, May 12, 2022................................................... 69A

Appendix J: Court of Appeals of the State

of New Mexico, Motion to Reconsider, June

13, 2025 ......................................................................... 73A

Appendix K: Court of Appeals of the State

of New Mexico, Pre Background Information

Forward, May 9, 2025................................................. 77A

Appendix L: Selections from Hearing Records

and Docket Entries Demonstrating Procedural

Defaults....................................................................... 110A

Appendix M: Court of Appeals of the State

of New Mexico, Motion to Amend Docketing

Statement.................................................................... 114A

Appendix N: Supreme Court of the State of

New Mexico, Motion for Rehearing and

Reconsideration, April 16, 2024............................. 122A

Appendix O: Eighth Judicial District

Court, State of New Mexico, County of

Taos, Notice of Appeal, November 3, 2025........... 127A

15A

APPENDIX B

(September 16, 2025 Order of the New Mexico

Supreme Court denying Motion for Rehearing

and Reconsideration)

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

September 16, 2025

Filed

Supreme Court of New Mexico

9/16/2025 3: 0 PM

Office of the Clerk

/s/

NO. S-l-SC-41035

KERRY KRUSKAL,

Plaintiff-Petitioner,

ALAN MAESTAS; MAESTAS LAW FIRM,

P.C. f/k/a MAESTAS AND BOOTHBY,

P.C.; KIMBERLY ALDERMAN; DWIGHT

THOMPSON; JONTHAN HULL; PAULA

GANZ; and SANTIAGO CHAVEZ,

Defendants-Respondents.

ORDER

WHEREAS, this matter came on for

consideration by the Court upon motion for

16A

rehearing and reconsideration following denial of

petition for writ of certiorari, and the Court having

considered foregoing pleadings and being sufficiently

advised, Chief Justice David K. Thomson, Justice

Michael E. Vigil, Justice C. Shannon Bacon, and

Justice Briana H. Zamora concurring; Justice Julie

J. Vargas recused.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that

the motion for rehearing and reconsideration is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WITNESS, the Honorable David K. Thomson, Chief

Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New

Mexico, and the seal of said Court this 16th day of

September, 2025.

Elizabeth A. Garcia, Clerk of Court

Supreme Court of New Mexico

Is/

I CERTIFY AND ATTEST:

A true copy was served on all parties or their counsel

of record on date filed.

Is/

Clerk of the Supreme Court

of the State of New Mexico

17A

APPENDIX C

(Order of the Supreme Court of New Mexico denying

certiorari (August 25, 2025))

FILED

SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO

8/25/2025 11:24 AM

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

No. S-l-SC-41035

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF

THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

KERRY KRUSKAL,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALAN MAESTAS; MAESTAS LAW FIRM, P.C.

f/k/a MAESTAS AND BOOTHBY, P.C.;

KIMBERLY ALDERMAN; DWIGHT

THOMPSON; JONATHAN HULL; PAULA 9

GANZ; and SANTIAGO CHAVEZ,

Defendants-Respondents.

ORDER

WHEREAS, this matter came on for consideration by

the Court upon petition for writ of certiorari filed

under Rule 12-502 NMRA, and the Court having

considered foregoing pleadings and being sufficiently

advised, Chief Justice David K. Thomson, Justice

Michael E. Vigil, Justice C. Shannon Bacon, and

Justice Briana H. Zamora concurring; Justice Julie

J. Vargas recused.

18A

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the

petition for writ of certiorari is DENIED; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court of

Appeals may proceed in Kruskal v. Maestas, Ct. App

No. A-l-CA-41284 in accordance with the Rules of

Appellate Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19A

APPENDIX D

(Memorandum Opinion of the New Mexico Court of

Appeals affirming dismissal (June 3, 2025))

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the

outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to

the time of publication with NM Compilation

Commission. The Court will ensure that the

electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated

accordingly in Odyssey.

FILED

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

NEW MEXICO

6/3/2025 1:37 PM

No. A-l-CA-41284

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE

OF NEW MEXICO

KERRY KRUSKAL,

Plaintiffs-Appellant,

v.

ALAN MAESTAS; MAESTAS LAW FIRM, P.C.

f/k/a MAESTAS AND BOOTHBY, P.C.;

KIMBERLY ALDERMAN; DWIGHT

THOMPSON; JONATHAN HULL; PAULA 9

GANZ; and SANTIAGO CHAVEZ,

Defendants-Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF

TAOS COUNTY

Maria Sanchez-Gagne, District Court Judge

20A

Kerry Kruskal

Arroyo Seco, NM

Pro Se Appellant

Resnick & Louis, P.C.

John S. Campbell

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellees Alan Maestas, Maestas Law Firm, P.C.

20 f/k/a Maestas & Bothby, P.C., Kimberly

Aiderman, Paula Gantz, and Santiago Chavez

Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A.

Noell S. Huffmyer

Edward Ricco

Seth L Sparks

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee Dwight Thompson

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DUFFY, Judge.

{1} Plaintiff Kerry Kruskal appeals from a number of

district court orders on five general grounds.

Plaintiff argues that the district court (1) deprived

him of due process by dismissing his timely filings,

(2) deprived him of procedural fairness by deviating

from timelines, (3) erred in denying him the

opportunity to depose one of the parties, (4)

inconsistently applied scheduling orders, and (5)

failed to apply settled principles of law. Concluding

21A

that Plaintiff has not shown error requiring reversal,

we affirm.

BACKGROUND

{2} Plaintiff asserted claims for legal malpractice,

fraud, and fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation

in connection with four cases handled by Defendants

Maestas Law Firm, P.C., Alan Maestas, Kimberly

Aiderman, Dwight Thompson, Jonathan Hull, Paula

Ganz, and Santiago Chavez. Plaintiff alleged that

Defendants were negligent in carrying out their legal

services by allowing unlicensed and disbarred

attorneys to work on the cases, giving incorrect legal

advice, filing deficient pleadings, missing deadlines,

and failing to communicate with Plaintiff regarding

the status of his cases. Over the eight-year course of

the underlying litigation, the district court entered

orders dismissing Plaintiffs claims and granting

Defendants' motions for summary judgment and

dismissal. Plaintiff now appeals, listing

approximately twenty district court rulings and five

overarching claims of error, discussed in more detail

below.

DISCUSSION

{2} Plaintiff asserted claims for legal malpractice,

fraud, and fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation

in connection with four cases handled by Defendants

Maestas Law Firm, P.C., Alan Maestas, Kimberly

Aiderman, Dwight Thompson, Jonathan Hull, Paula

Ganz, and Santiago Chavez. Plaintiff alleged that

Defendants were negligent in carrying out their legal

22A

services by allowing unlicensed and disbarred

attorneys to work on the cases, giving incorrect legal

advice, filing deficient pleadings, missing deadlines,

and failing to communicate with Plaintiff regarding

the status of his cases. Over the eight-year course of

the underlying litigation, the district court entered

orders dismissing Plaintiffs claims and granting

Defendants' motions for summary judgment and

dismissal. Plaintiff now appeals, listing

approximately twenty district court rulings and five

overarching claims of error, discussed in more detail

below.

1. Dismissal of Timely Filings

{4} Plaintiff first argues that the district court

compromised his right to due process by consistently

dismissing his timely filings, "particularly those

deemed crucial to the discovery process." Plaintiff

contends that the district court's rulings impeded his

ability to present evidence and actively participate in

the legal process, as well as his ability to present a

defense.

{5} As an initial matter, we observe that Plaintiff has

not identified which of the twenty district court

rulings he is addressing in this section of his

briefing. To the extent Plaintiff invites this court to

conduct a comprehensive review of the district

court's rulings, we remind Plaintiff that it is an

appellant's burden to demonstrate error on appeal.

See Premier Tr. of Nev., Inc. v. City of Albuquerque,

2021-NMCA-20 004, 110, 482 P.3d 1261 ("[Wle

reiterate that it is the appellant's burden to

demonstrate, by providing well-supported and clear

arguments, that the district court has erred."); State

23A

v. Clifford, 1994-NMSC-048, 1 19, 117 N.M. 508, 873

P.2d 254 ("We remind counsel that we are not

required to do their research."). Plaintiff's short

descriptions of the motions and orders at issue on

pages 5-10 of his brief in chief do not provide

argument or authority to demonstrate that any of

the district court's rulings were erroneous. See Lee v.

Lee (In re Adoption of Doe), 1984-NMSC-024, 2, 100

N.M. 764, 676 P.2d 1329 ("[T]o present an issue on

appeal for review, an appellant must submit

argument and authority as required by rule."

(emphasis omitted)); State v. Cain, 2019-NMCA-059,

3, 450 P.3d 452 ("Although pro se pleadings are

viewed with tolerance, a pro se litigant, having

chosen to represent [them]self, is held to the same

standard of conduct and compliance with court rules,

procedures, and orders as are members of the bar."

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Without demonstrating that the district court's

dismissal orders were granted in error, Plaintiff has

not provided grounds for this Court to conclude that

the cumulative effect of the district court's rulings

was unfair.

{6} While Plaintiff appears to suggest that the fact

that his claims were dismissed before trial, in and of

itself, is either procedurally unfair or in violation of

his right to due process, this is not sufficient to

demonstrate a due process violation. See Titus v.

City of Albuquerque, 2011-NMCA-038, 45-48, 149

N.M. 556, 252 P.3d 780 (refusing to address bare

constitutional assertions without sufficient

explanation of pertinent facts and how any relevant

case law might support the appellant's position).

"The Due Process Clauses of the United States and

24A

New Mexico Constitutions require the government to

afford certain procedural protections prior to

depriving any person of a constitutionally protected

interest in life, liberty, or property." N.M. Dep't of

Workforce Sols. v. Garduno, 2016-NMSC-002, 10,

363 P.3d 1176; see also U.S. Const, amend. XIV, ("No

State shall. . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or

property, without due process of law."); N.M. Const,

art. II, § 18 ("No person shall be deprived of life,

liberty or property without due process of law."). In

order to establish a due process violation, Plaintiff

must establish that "he was deprived of a legitimate

liberty or property interest and that he was not

afforded adequate procedural protections in

connection with the deprivation." See Bd. of Educ. of

Carlsbad Mun. Schs. v. Harrell, 1994-NMSC-096, 1

21, 118 N.M.470, 882 P.2d 511. To determine

whether a party was afforded adequate procedural

protections, New Mexico courts apply the balancing

test announced in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319

(1976), taking into account "(1) the private interest

that will be affected by the official action; (2) the risk

of erroneous deprivation of such interest through

procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of

additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and

(3) the government's interest, including the function

involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens

that the additional or substitute procedural

requirements would entail." Gonzalez v. Watson,

2024-NMCA-033, 18 545 P. 3d 1190. (alteration,

internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).

{7} In this case, Plaintiff has not demonstrated either

that he was deprived of a constitutionally protected

liberty or property interest, or that he did not receive

25A

adequate procedural protections. See Bounds v. State

ex rel. D’Antonio, 2013-NMSC-037, 51 306 P. 3d 457

(“The threshold question in evaluating a due process

challenge is whether there is a deprivation of liberty

or property.” (alteration, internal quotation marks,

and citation omitted)). Having reviewed the record,

it appears Plaintiff was given the opportunity to

present his position on each of the rulings he

identified-either via his written motions and

responses or orally at hearings on those motions.

Consequently, it appears Plaintiff was given

adequate process with respect to each of the rulings

he identifies on appeal. Plaintiff has not developed

any additional argument as to what additional

process he believes he was owed. For all of these

reasons, we conclude Plaintiff has not demonstrated

error or a due process violation in the district court's

dismissal of his claims, individually or collectively.

IL Deviation from Established Timelines

{8} Plaintiff asserts that the district court deviated

from "established timelines," which compromised his

procedural rights and impacted his ability to present

a defense. Plaintiff does not, however, identify what

timeline(s) he is referring to, nor does he specify how

or when the district court deviated from such

timelines. The only clue provided in the briefing is

Plaintiffs reference to "cases involving the denial of

default judgments." Nevertheless, Plaintiff has not

provided us with the basic information needed to

review his claim. In particular Plaintiff fails to

identify any specific error, has not provided citations

to the record or authority, and has provided no

argument to support his contentions. See Rule 12318(A)(4) NMRA; see also In re Adoption of Doe,

26A

1984-NMSC-024,1 2. "We will not review unclear

arguments or guess at what a party's arguments

might be."Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, 2013NMSC-040, 1 70, 309 P.3d 53 (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted). "To rule on an

inadequately briefed issue, this Court would have to

develop the arguments itself, effectively performing

the parties' work for them. This creates a strain on

judicial resources and a substantial risk of error." Id.

(citation omitted)). Finally, for the same reasons

discussed above, we decline Plaintiffs invitation to

conduct a comprehensive review in the absence of an

otherwise developed argument. See Premier Tr. of

Nev., Inc., 2021-NMCA-004, In sum, Plaintiffs

briefing on point two is inadequately developed to

permit us to review the issue.

Ill. Denial of Opportunity to Depose Defendant

Santiago Chavez

{9} Plaintiff alleges that the district court erred by

denying him the opportunity to depose Defendant

Santiago Chavez, in violation of Rule 1-030 NMRA.

Here, too, Plaintiff has not identified which ruling(s)

he is appealing from or provided citations to the

record directing this court to where the issue was

preserved below. Plaintiff cites to one out-of-state

case for the proposition that courts should interpret

[] and apply 11 procedural rules liberally in favor of

allowing parties to.present evidence," but has not

otherwise developed an argument demonstrating

how or why the district court erred. For these

reasons, we conclude Plaintiffs argument is not

sufficiently developed for appellate review. See Muse

v. Muse, 2009-NMCA-003, 1 42, 145 N.M. 451, 200

P.3d 104 ("[This Court] is not obligated to search the

27A

record on a party's behalf to locate support for

propositions a party advances or representations of

counsel as to what occurred in the proceedings.");

State v. Ortiz, 2009-NMCA-092, 32, 146 N.M. 873,

215 P.3d 811 (noting that it is the party's

responsibility to connect legal theories to the

pertinent elements and the factual support for those

elements and that this Court may decline to review

undeveloped arguments on appeal); State v.

Gonzalez, 2011-NMCA-007, 1 19, 149 N.M. 226, 247

P.3d 1111 (stating that "this Court has no duty to

review an argument that is not adequately

developed").

IV. Inconsistent Application of Scheduling

Orders

{10} For his fourth claim of error, Plaintiff argues the

district court's inconsistent application of scheduling

orders resulted in inequitable treatment that

prejudiced Plaintiffs ability to present his case.

Plaintiff does not provide any further explanation of

how or when the district court deviated from

scheduling orders, nor has he provided any

argument as to how he was prejudiced or what relief

he seeks. See Rule 12-318(A)(4); see also Deaton v.

Gutierrez, 2004-NMCA-043, 31, 135 N.M. 423, 89

P.3d 672 ("An assertion of prejudice is not a showing

of prejudice, and in the absence of prejudice, there is

no reversible error." (alteration, internal quotation

marks, and citation omitted)). Because Plaintiff has

not offered an argument, citation to the record, or

legal authority to establish the basic premise of his

claim of error, we are unable to review the merits of

Plaintiffs claim. See Gonzalez, 2011-NMCA-007, 1

19; see also Hall v. City of Carlsbad, 2023-NMCA-

28A

042, 5, 531 P.3d 642 ("[T]he party claiming error

must clearly show error." (internal quotation marks

and citation omitted)).

V. Misapplication of Legal Principles in

Adverse Orders

{11] Finally, Plaintiff claims that the district court

erred in its application of legal principles when

ruling against him. Again, Plaintiff has not

identified any specific error for review or any specific

order in which the district court incorrectly applied

settled law. Instead, Plaintiff seems to suggest that

the district court "may" have issued orders

erroneously that "may not align with established

legal principles." To the extent Plaintiff suggests this

Court should conduct its own review the district

court's orders, this we will not do. On appeal, "[there

is a presumption of correctness in the district court's

rulings. Accordingly, it is [Plaintiffs] burden ... to

demonstrate any claimed error below." See State v.

Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, 10, 127 N.M. 393, 981

P.2d 1211 (alterations, internal quotation marks,

and citations omitted). Plaintiff has not

demonstrated error. To do so, Plaintiff would need to

substantively address specific district court rulings

by identifying specific error in specific orders),

providing citations to the record showing where the

error occurred and how it was preserved, along with

authority and analysis supporting Plaintiffs claim of

error. Plaintiff has not done so, and has provided

only generalized, vague assertions that error

occurred. See Chan v. Montoya, 2011-NMCA-072, 9,

150 N.M. 44, 256 P.3d 987 ("It is not our practice to

rely on assertions of counsel unaccompanied by

support in the record. The mere assertions and

29A

arguments of counsel are not evidence." (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). As stated

throughout this opinion, this Court will not search

the record for evidence to support Plaintiffs claims.

Muse, 2009-NMCA-003, 42. Because these

arguments are not adequately developed, we decline

to address them.

{12} We note that a pro se litigant is bound by all the

rules of appellate procedure applicable to litigants

represented by attorneys, and under those rules, it is

not enough for a litigant to simply raise the

possibility of an issue and ask this Court to search

the record for error to correct. These rules are not

mere formalities; they are in place to assist this

Court in its review, particularly in cases such as this

where the record proper is over 5,000 pages. See id.

72 ("We will not search the record for facts,

arguments, and rulings in order to support

generalized arguments."). For the reasons stated

above, we conclude Plaintiff has not met his burden

to demonstrate that the district court erred.

CONCLUSION

{13} For the forgoing reasons, we affirm.

{14} IT IS SO ORDERED.

Additional material

fl

& B

a

d

from this filing is

available in the

Clerk's Office.