Avery v. Boysen, 945 N.W.2d 314

Amy Avery petitioned for a disorderly conduct restraining order against Troy Boysen; the court issued temporary and amended temporary orders and set a hearing for March 8, 2019.
Boysen had a flat tire while traveling to the hearing, called the courthouse, and alleges he was told his case "would go second" and that he would be given time to arrive.
The court acknowledged Boysen had called and was delayed but, after waiting and when another scheduled case’s parties failed to appear, proceeded with the hearing about 15 minutes after the scheduled start without Boysen present.
The court entered a six-month restraining order barring Boysen from contacting or coming within 50 feet of Avery. Boysen arrived just after the hearing concluded.
Boysen moved for reconsideration (treated as a Rule 60(b)(1) motion) and for a new trial under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(b)(3), arguing his absence was due to excusable neglect (flat tire) and thus relief was warranted.
The district court denied both motions; Boysen appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief and a new trial. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Rule 60(b)(1) relief for Boysen's failure to appear	Boysen: flat tire was excusable neglect; he called the court and was told his case would go second, so the court should have granted relief	Court/district: Boysen was not present at the scheduled time; court delayed but had discretion to proceed when other parties failed to appear	Denial affirmed — Boysen failed to show extraordinary circumstances or abuse of discretion
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a new trial under Rule 59(b)(3) for "accident or surprise"	Boysen: flat tire prevented timely appearance; a new trial would allow him to defend himself	Court/district: trial management and continuance decisions rest within court's discretion; no showing of manifest abuse	Denial affirmed — no manifest abuse of discretion in refusing a new trial
Procedural effect of a motion for reconsideration	Boysen: filed a motion labeled "reconsideration" seeking relief from the order	State/precedent: North Dakota does not formally recognize motions to reconsider; such motions are treated under Rules 59 or 60	The motion was treated as seeking relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) and adjudicated accordingly

Berry v. Berry, 903 N.W.2d 68 (N.D. 2017) (abuse-of-discretion standard for denying Rule 60(b) relief)
Knutson v. Knutson, 639 N.W.2d 495 (N.D. 2002) (Rule 60(b) invoked only for extraordinary circumstances)
Carroll v. Carroll, 892 N.W.2d 173 (N.D. 2017) (balance between finality and justice under Rule 60(b); trial-management discretion)
Twete v. Mullin, 931 N.W.2d 198 (N.D. 2019) (movant bears burden to show abuse of discretion in Rule 60(b) context)
Anderson v. Baker, 871 N.W.2d 830 (N.D. 2015) (movant bears burden to show sufficient grounds to disturb finality)
Shull v. Walcker, 770 N.W.2d 274 (N.D. 2009) (relief under Rule 60(b) appropriate only in exceptional circumstances)
Wilson v. Wilson, 855 N.W.2d 105 (N.D. 2014) (broad trial-court discretion over trial conduct and continuances)