Anthony Evans, Appellant, vs. Sunrise East Multifamily, LLC, Respondent, a252024

Background

Evans sued Sunrise for personal injuries allegedly sustained in a slip-and-fall on Sunrise's premises. 1
Sunrise served an answer, and the parties later signed a joint discovery plan and stipulated to amend it. 2
Evans filed the complaint more than one year after service, and Sunrise moved to dismiss under Rule 5.04. 3
The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and Evans did not timely appeal that judgment. 4
Evans later moved for relief from judgment under Rule 60.02 after learning of the dismissal, and the district court denied relief after weighing the Finden factors. 5
Evans appealed only the denial of his Rule 60.02 motion. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of review on Rule 60.02 appeal 7	Evans could challenge the underlying Rule 5.04 dismissal.	Only the Rule 60.02 denial is reviewable; the dismissal was not timely appealed.	Underlying dismissal error is outside the scope of review. 8
Debatably meritorious claim 9	Evans's complaint alleged a viable negligence claim and injuries.	The allegations were conclusory and lacked specific supporting facts.	No abuse of discretion in finding this factor weak. 10
Reasonable excuse for failure to act 11	Counsel missed the motion because he was not signed up for e-service.	Evans and counsel also failed to use required e-service and missed a deposition.	No abuse of discretion in finding no reasonable excuse. 12
Due diligence after learning of the error 13	Evans moved quickly after learning of the dismissal.	Not disputed, but relief still required all Finden factors.	Evans satisfied due diligence. 14
Substantial prejudice to Sunrise 15	No substantial prejudice because witnesses and evidence remained available.	Delay and discovery failures prejudiced the defense.	No abuse of discretion in finding substantial prejudice. 16

Key Cases Cited

Lilly v. City of Minneapolis, 527 N.W.2d 107 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995) (scope of review depends on the nature of the appeal and preserved issues 17)
Clifford v. Bundy, 747 N.W.2d 363 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008) (an untimely postdecision motion does not toll the appeal period 18)
Bender v. Bernhard, 971 N.W.2d 257 (Minn. 2022) (Rule 60.02 balances finality against injustice 19)
Carter v. Anderson, 554 N.W.2d 110 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996) (Rule 60.02 relief is limited to the rule's specified grounds 20)
Sullivan v. Spot Weld, Inc., 560 N.W.2d 712 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997) (Rule 60.02 does not permit general correction of judicial error 21)
Pederson v. Rose Co-op. Creamery Ass'n, 326 N.W.2d 657 (Minn. 1982) (errors correctable by appeal cannot be reviewed through a vacatur motion 22)
Cole v. Wutzke, 884 N.W.2d 634 (Minn. 2016) (Rule 60.02 and Finden-factor standards for excusable neglect relief 23)
Gams v. Houghton, 884 N.W.2d 611 (Minn. 2016) (abuse-of-discretion standard and requirement to find all four Finden factors 24)
Cornell v. Ripka, 897 N.W.2d 801 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017) (due diligence is measured from when the movant learns of the error 25)
Belton v. City of Minneapolis, 393 N.W.2d 244 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) (delay can reduce the need for concrete proof of prejudice 26)
Glen Edin of Edinburgh Ass'n v. Hiscox Ins. Co., 992 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. 2023) (statement of the four Finden requirements 27)
Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. True Gravity Ventures, LLC, 23 N.W.3d 837 (Minn. 2025) (appeal time runs from entry of judgment without notice 28)