N.M. at Casa Arena Blanca, LLC, et al., No. 30,477, slip op. (N.M.Ct.App. July 18, 2012), cert. denied, No. 33,762,- N.M. -, 297 P.3d 332 (N.M. Oct. 3, 2012). The letter states that this supplemental authority was submitted “because it addresses the enforceability of the arbitration clause at issue in this case.” The Figueroa court concluded that the arbitration clause, which was virtually identical to the one in this case, could not be enforced because it was unconscionable. If this Rule 28(j) letter was submitted to suggest that we should consider whether the arbitration clause is unconscionable, that issue is not properly before this court because Ms. Patton did not file a cross-appeal from the district court’s decision.. See Trigalet v. Young, 54 F.3d 645, 647 n. 3 (10th Cir.1995)
holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal because it was filed before the final order awarding attorneys fees holding that trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider defendants motion to withdraw guilty plea filed beyond term of court in which defendant was sentenced holding that because the state failed to properly file the complaint the district court lacked jurisdiction to proceed to trial holding that when the district court dismissed rather than transferred a case not within its jurisdiction and a party appealed that dismissal the circuit court could consider only the propriety of the dismissal on appeal and determining that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction on appeal to consider the merits of the action holding that court lacked jurisdiction to consider issue when party did not file a crossappeal