A district court has authority under rule 6.02 of the rules of civil procedure to enlarge the 180-day period of section 544.42, subdivision 4. Lake Superior Ctr. Auth. v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc., 715 N.W.2d 458, 470-71 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Aug. 23, 2006); see also Anderson v. Rengachary, 608 N.W.2d 843, 849-50 (Minn. 2000) (considering motion under rule 6.02 to enlarge time for filing expert-identification affidavit pursuant to section 145.682, subdivision 4).

Id., subd. 1(c). "When reasonable minds can differ about when the injury was discovered, summary judgment is inappropriate because the issue should be left to the trier of fact." Lake Superior Ctr. Auth. v. Hammel, Green Abrahamson, Inc., 715 N.W.2d 458, 472-73 (Minn.App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Aug. 23, 2006).

3. Equitable Estoppel Plaintiffs argue even if their breach of express warranty claim accrued on July 8, 2004, and their breach of implied warranty claim accrued on July 31, 2003, the limitations period was tolled until at least November 2004 because Blue Bird repeatedly promised to repair the RV and conform it to the limited warranty. Under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, if a buyer delays filing suit as a result of reasonable and detrimental reliance on a seller's assurances it will repair the defective goods, the limitations period is tolled during that period of delay.See Lake Superior Ctr. Authority v. Hammel, Green Abrahamson, Inc., 715 N.W.2d 458, 473 (Minn.Ct.App. 2006) (discussing defects in real property); J D Constr., Inc. v. Ramy Int'l. Ltd., No. C4-01-498, 2001 WL 969146, at *3 (Minn.Ct.App. Aug. 28, 2001); U.S. Leasing Corp. v. Biba Info. Processing Servs., Inc., 436 N.W.2d 823, 826 (Minn.Ct.App. 1989); Sohns, 354 N.W.2d at 855. See generally Hydra-Mac, 450 N.W.2d at 919 n. 4. "While estoppel is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury, when only one inference can be drawn from the facts, the question is one of law."

Some cases suggest that the Court may allow for delay in the filing of these affidavits, but only upon a showing of excusable neglect. See, e.g., Flores v. United States, 689 F.3d 894, 900 (8th Cir. 2012) (finding the expert requirements under Minn. Stat. § 145.682 could be excused due to "excusable neglect"); Lake Superior Ctr. Auth. v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc., 715 N.W.2d 458, 471 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006) (finding that "the time limits imposed by Minn. Stat. § 544.42 are procedural and can therefore be extended, even after the time limits expire, upon a showing of excusable neglect"). However, the Court finds no clear error in the Magistrate Judge's determination that Liedtke has not made any showing that her failure to comply should be excused. "Excusable neglect is found when (1) there is a reasonable defense on the merits; (2) there is a reasonable excuse for the failure to answer; (3) the party acted with due diligence after notice of the entry of judgment; and (4) no substantial prejudice results to other parties."

. Auth. v. Hammel, Green &Abrahamson, Inc., 715 N.W.2d 458, 479 (Minn.App. 2006), rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 23, 2006).

"The decision to grant a new trial based on claimed attorney misconduct rests wholly within the district court's discretion." Lake Superior Ctr. Auth. v. Hammel, Green &Abrahamson, Inc., 715 N.W.2d 458, 479 (Minn.App. 2006) (citing Johnson v. Washington County, 518 N.W.2d 594, 600 (Minn. 1994)), rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 23, 2006). The district court is afforded broad discretion for good reason.

"A district court's decision regarding whether to dismiss a malpractice claim for noncompliance with statutory requirements regarding submission of expert affidavits will be reversed only upon an abuse of discretion." Lake Superior Ctr. Auth. v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc., 715 N.W.2d 458, 468 (Minn.App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Aug. 23, 2006).

"The decision to grant a new trial based on claimed attorney misconduct rests wholly within the district court's discretion." Lake Superior Ctr. Auth. v. Hammel, 715 N.W.2d 458, 479 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Aug. 23, 2006). "The paramount consideration in determining whether a new trial is required in cases alleging misconduct is whether prejudice occurred . . . such that it affected the outcome of the case."

1988). To establish excusable neglect, there are four required elements: (1) there is a reasonable defense on the merits; (2) there is a reasonable excuse for the failure to file; (3) the party acted with due diligence after notice; and (4) no substantial prejudice results to other parties. Lake Superior Ctr. Auth. v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc. , 715 N.W.2d 458, 471 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Aug. 23, 2006).

When by statute, by these rules, by a notice given thereunder, or by order of court an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the court for cause shown may, at any time in its discretion, . . . upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect. Rule 6.02 grants a district court authority to extend the 180-day period for serving an expert-disclosure affidavit under section 544.42, subdivision 4. Lake Superior Ctr. Auth. v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc., 715 N.W.2d 458, 470-71 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Aug. 23, 2006); see also Minn. Stat. § 544.42, subd. 4(b) (permitting extension of the 180-day period upon the parties' agreement or by court order for good cause shown).