New Mexico summary judgment: fifteen days each way, and no fixed deadline to move
New Mexico procedure · Last verified August 17, 2026
New Mexico's summary-judgment rule is short, and two of its features are unusual. There is no numbered deadline for filing the motion, only a reasonableness test measured against the trial date. And where most states put the statement of undisputed facts in a separate document, New Mexico puts it inside the memorandum.
There is no filing deadline, only a reasonableness test
Rule 1-056(D)(1) states the outer limit as a standard rather than a number:
Motions for summary judgment will not be considered unless filed within a reasonable time prior to the date of trial to allow sufficient time for the opposing party to file a response and affidavits, depositions or other documentary evidence and to permit the court reasonable time to dispose of the motion.
Read what "reasonable" is measured by. It is not a generic fairness test — the rule defines it by two concrete needs: enough time for the opposition and its evidence, and enough time for the court to decide. Working backwards from trial, that is at minimum the 15-day response plus the 15-day reply plus whatever the judge needs, which in practice puts a motion filed a month before trial in difficulty.
Either side may move. Rule 1-056(A) lets a claimant move "with or without supporting affidavits for a summary judgment in his favor upon all or any part thereof," and Rule 1-056(B) gives a defending party the same, "as to all or any part thereof." Unlike Maine's 20-day hold or Georgia's 30, New Mexico imposes no waiting period after the action commences.
The clock: 15 and 15
Rule 1-056(D)(2) carries the schedule:
The moving party shall submit to the court a written memorandum containing a short, concise statement of the reasons in support of the motion with a list of authorities relied upon. A party opposing the motion shall, within fifteen (15) days after service of the motion, submit to the court a written memorandum containing a short, concise statement of the reasons in opposition to the motion with authorities. The moving party may, within fifteen (15) days after the service of such memorandum, submit a written reply memorandum.
| Step | Deadline |
|---|---|
| Motion | any time, but "within a reasonable time prior to the date of trial" |
| Opposition | 15 days after service of the motion |
| Reply | 15 days after service of the opposition |
Fifteen days each way is short by national standards — Vermont allows 30 to oppose, Maine 21. Calendar accordingly, particularly where the response has to be built on affidavits or deposition excerpts you do not yet have in hand.
The statement of facts lives inside the memorandum
This is the structural difference. New Mexico does not require a separate statement of undisputed material facts; the same subdivision that sets the deadlines prescribes what the memoranda must contain.
For the movant:
The memorandum in support of the motion shall set out a concise statement of all of the material facts as to which the moving party contends no genuine issue exists. The facts shall be numbered and shall refer with particularity to those portions of the record upon which the moving party relies.
For the party opposing:
A memorandum in opposition to the motion shall contain a concise statement of the material facts as to which the party contends a genuine issue does exist. Each fact in dispute shall be numbered, shall refer with particularity to those portions of the record upon which the opposing party relies, and shall state the number of the moving party's fact that is disputed.
Three requirements sit in that second passage, and all three are easy to half-satisfy: number your disputed facts, cite the record with particularity, and cross-reference the movant's paragraph number. An opposition that argues the facts in narrative form, without tying each disputed fact to the numbered assertion it answers, has not complied.
Unanswered facts are admitted
The consequence is one sentence:
All material facts set forth in the statement of the moving party shall be deemed admitted unless specifically controverted.
"Specifically" is the operative word, and it connects back to the cross-referencing requirement. A general denial, or a statement of your own version of events that never engages the movant's numbered paragraph, leaves that paragraph admitted.
What the court must say when it rules
Rule 1-056(C) contains a requirement directed at the order rather than the parties:
If alternative grounds for summary judgment have been presented to the court, the order granting or denying the motion for summary judgment shall specify the grounds upon which the order is based.
This matters on appeal. Where a movant offers two or three independent theories, the order has to identify which one carried, rather than granting judgment without explanation. If you are the prevailing movant, check the proposed order against this requirement before it is entered; if you are appealing, an order that does not comply is worth noting.
Rule 1-056(C) also carries the standard — judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law" — and permits a partial judgment: "A summary judgment, interlocutory in character, may be rendered on the issue of liability alone although there is a genuine issue as to the amount of damages."
The affidavits, and what an opponent may not do
Rule 1-056(E) sets the form and then the burden. Affidavits "shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein," and supporting papers "shall be attached thereto or served therewith."
Then the response obligation, in the rule's own older phrasing:
When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him.
New Mexico has not conformed Rule 1-056 to gender-neutral drafting, so the text still reads "his" and "him." It is quoted here as it stands.
If you cannot oppose yet
Rule 1-056(F) is the continuance provision:
Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that he cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify his position, the court may refuse the application for judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just.
The relief has to be sought by affidavit stating reasons — not by argument in the responsive memorandum. Given the 15-day response window, a Rule 1-056(F) affidavit is often the realistic move where discovery is still running.
Bad-faith affidavits
Rule 1-056(G) is the sanction, and it is mandatory in form. Where affidavits "are presented in bad faith or solely for the purpose of delay, the court shall forthwith order the party employing them to pay to the other party the amount of the reasonable expenses which the filing of the affidavits caused him to incur, including reasonable attorney's fees, and any offending party or attorney may be adjudged guilty of contempt."