Cited by

See Gams v. Houghton , (“[R]emand is the appropriate remedy when the district 14 court has made insufficient findings to enable appellate review.”), aff’d as modified

See G (stating that “foundational principle of the right to due process is an opportunity to be heard upon such notice and proceedings as are adequate to safeguard the right for which the constitutional protection is invoked” (quotation omitted)).

“A district court abuses its discretion when it acts under a misapprehension of the law, or when its factual findings are clearly erroneous.” (quotations omitted).

Id.; d 611, 619-20 (Minn. 2016) (applying Finden factors to denial of relief under rule 60.02 for default judgment entered pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 5.04).

Repair, Inc., (), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

hrough this series of transactions and non-disclosures of financial information, RBF, Scott, and Lennea have “systematically starved HLP for the financial benefit of RBF” and “have 4 Minnesota has a long- standing practice, known as hip-pocket service or pocket service, that has “permitted a party to commence an action simply by service of the summons upon the defendant.”

-20 (Minn. 2016); (listing factors for relief under Minn. R. Civ.

Whether to grant rule 60.02 relief is “based on all the surrounding facts of each specific case[] and is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.”

Commitment of Ince, but when the district court’s findings are not sufficient for meaningful appellate review, we may remand for further findings, (“[R]emand is the appropriate remedy when the district court has made insufficient findings to enable 9 appellate review.”), aff’d as modified

“Whether procedural due process has been violated is a question of law that we review de novo.”

ors, a district court may grant a rule 60.02 motion based on excusable neglect if the movant demonstrates “(1) a debatably meritorious claim; (2) a reasonable excuse for the movant’s failure or neglect to act; (3) the movant acted with due diligence after learning of the error or omission; and (4) no substantial prejudice will result to the other party if relief is granted.” -20 (Minn. 2016) (quotations omitted).

16 reasonable excuse for the movant’s failure or neglect to act; (3) the movant acted with due diligence after learning of the error or omission; and (4) no substantial prejudice will result to the other party if relief is granted.” -20 (Minn. 2016) (quotations omitted); (summarizing the factors to consider when deciding a rule 60.02 motion).

“The foundational principle of the right to due process is an opportunity to be heard upon such notice and proceedings as are adequate to safeguard the right for which the constitutional protection is invoked.” (quotation omitted).

when the mov ing party “(a) is possessed of a reasonable defense on the merits, (b) has a reasonable excuse for his failure or neglect to answer, (c) has acted with due diligence after notice of the entry of judgment, and (d) shows that no substantial prejudice will result to the other party.” (quotation omitted)

11 (quotation omitted); cf. City of Elk River, d at 178 (in reviewing a district court’s decision to certify a final partial judgment under rule 54.02, stating that “[a] district court abuses its discretion when it acts under a ‘misapprehension of the law’” () (other citation omitted)).

Whether to grant rule 60.02 relief is “based on all the surrounding facts of each specific case, and is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.”

“A district court abuses its discretion when it acts under a misapprehension of the law or when its factual findings are clearly erroneous.” (citations and quotations omitted).

The “district court abuses its discretion when it acts under a misapprehension of the law, or when its factual findings are clearly erroneous.” (quotations and citations omitted).

5 (“[R]emand is the appropriate remedy when the district court has made insufficient findings to enable appellate review.”), aff’d as modified

in order to grant relief under [r]ule 60.02(a).” -20 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

(stating that, to review a district court’s 10 decision denying relief from a judgment or order under Minn. R. Civ.

(stating that all four factors must be satisfied for district court to grant relief from default judgment).

-20 (Minn. 2016) (stating that to grant relief, “ the district court must consider, and expressly find that a party satisfied , all four of the Finden factors” (quotation omitted)); (stating that the party seeking relief “is obliged to affirmatively establish

But “[t]he interpretation of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure is a question of law that we review de novo.”

As such, a district court will not be reversed on appeal except for a clear abuse of discretion.” (quotation and citations omitted).

(“The interpretation of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure is a question of law that we review de novo.”).

“The interpretation of the Minnesota Rules of Civil procedure is a question of law that we review de novo.”

Although all four factors must be satisfied, -20 (Minn. 2016), “[a] strong showing on the other factors may offset a relative weakness on one factor[,]” Imperial Premium Fin.

6 or when its factual findings are clearly erroneous.” (quotations and citations omitted).