Opinion
A22-0849
01-19-2023
Florida P. Stevens, Respondent, v. Alex P. Thomas, Appellant.
Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-HR-CV-21-270
Considered and decided by Wheelock, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Smith, Tracy M., Judge.
ORDER OPINION
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In April 2021, respondent Florida P. Stevens filed a petition for a harassment restraining order (HRO), claiming that she needed protection from appellant Alex P. Thomas. The district court filed an ex parte order granting the HRO. Thomas requested a hearing.
2. On April 20, 2022, the district court held a hearing. Thomas failed to appear. The district court granted the HRO by default.
3. In May 2022, Thomas moved to vacate the HRO, claiming that he missed the hearing because he "had an incorrect date" for the hearing. The district court denied Thomas's motion, concluding that having an incorrect date for the hearing is not a reasonable excuse for missing a hearing.
4. Thomas now appeals. This court's June 20, 2022 order construed this appeal to be taken from the district court's order granting the HRO. "An order refusing to vacate an authorized judgment is reviewable on appeal from the judgment itself." Pierce v. Midwest Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 390 N.W.2d 358, 361 (Minn.App. 1986). Therefore, we will review the district court's order denying Thomas's motion to reopen the HRO.
5. A district court may relieve a party from a final order for "[m]istake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect" as well as "[a]ny other reason justifying relief." Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02. In considering a rule 60.02 motion, the district court must be satisfied that the movant met the requirements set forth in Finden v. Klaas, 128 N.W.2d 748 (Minn. 1964). These requirements are whether: (1) the movant has a reasonable defense on the merits, (2) the movant has a reasonable excuse for failing to act, (3) the movant acted with due diligence after learning of the error, and (4) the opponent will not be substantially prejudiced. Cole v. Wutzke, 884 N.W.2d 634, 637 (Minn. 2016). This court reviews a district court's decision on a rule 60.02 motion for an abuse of discretion. Gams v. Houghton, 884 N.W.2d 611, 620 (Minn. 2016).
6. The district court ruled that Thomas failed to meet the second requirement- he did not have a reasonable excuse for failing to act. The district court stated that Thomas wrote down the wrong date for the hearing but did not claim that he did not receive notice of the hearing date or that he did not have knowledge of the date.
7. Thomas argues that he "mistakenly glanced at hearing date 04/22/2021 and appeared for the hearing on the wrong date of 04/22/2022." But he does not present an argument as to why his mistake is a reasonable excuse for missing the hearing. See Louden v. Louden, 22 N.W.2d 164, 166 (Minn. 1946) ("An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant's brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection."); see also Gruenhagen v. Larson, 246 N.W.2d 565, 569 (Minn. 1976) (stating that this court, while affording some leeway to a pro se party, holds that party to the standards of an attorney). Absent more, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Thomas's request to reopen the order.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The district court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.