FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF SAN MIGUEL

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

METRIS COMPANIES LLP (Auto add,

            Plaintiff-in-Error,

v.

                                                                        Case No.  2003-188-CV

MARGARET EDWARDS,

            Defendant.

REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

            COMES NOW Margaret Edwards, defendant, and for her reply to state:

1.         Plaintiff failed to file a response within the prescribed time-period of 15 days within  receipt of service, pursuant to NMRA 1-007.1D, which constitutes consent to grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Response should be struck.

2.         Plaintiff failed to address three circumstances raised in Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and responded with conclusions of law usurping under the authority of the Court in the process without valid support.

A.  Edwards never knowingly contracted at any time with Metris Companies LLP.       

B.  Plaintiff enters information acquired from a non-party as authority for Plaintiff’s Complaint attempting thereby to deceive the Court and for that reason alone becomes subject to NMSA 36-2-17.

C.  Plaintiff believes jurisdiction of the Court is proper on the basis that Defendant dwells in the district and signed a contract with a non-party without any support, whatsoever, after having been given an opportunity to provide valid support.  This adds to the course of conduct to deceive the Court.

3.   Edwards invokes NMRA 1-008D on grounds Plaintiff, by and through counsel of         record, admitted to the veracity of all averments in Edwards’ Motion which required a response because they were not denied or addressed.  NMRA 1-008 is quoted for the information of the Court; to wit:  

      Effect of failure to deny.  Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required, other than those as to the amount of damage, are admitted when not denied in the responsive pleading.  Averments is a pleading to which no responsive pleading is required or permitted shall be taken as denied or avoided.

      Wherefore, Defendant Margaret Edwards’ Motion to Dismiss must be granted and the Court’s attention is invited to consider the attached order.

                                                                                    Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                    All Rights Reserved

 

                                                                                    _________________________

                                                                                    Margaret D. Edwards

                                                                                    C/o 739 Dalbey Drive

                                                                                    Las Vegas, New Mexico [87701]

                                                                                    (505) 425-0659

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

            I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Dismiss was sent first class by U.S. Mail postage prepaid, to Catherine Sanchez, Esq., Post Office Box 37290, Albuqurque, New Mexico 87176-7290, this 18^th day of July, 2003.

___________________________

Margaret D. Edwards