OPINION
{1} Petitioner-Defendant, Stephen Watson, challenges the Court of Appeals’ holding that the district court erred by denying plaintiffs’ motion for relief from a stipulated dismissal pursuant to Rule 1-060(B)(6) NMRA 1999. See Meiboom v. Watson,
I.
{2} This case arose from a failed business relationship. In 1984, Watson started a small business to produce and sell paper products made from cotton denim rag scraps. In 1990, Watson entered into a business relationship with Gary Doberman and David Meiboom to establish Denim Paper Products, Inc., a rag waste recycling business. By February 1991, both parties had a falling out and retained counsel. In April 1994, the parties reached an agreement to dissolve the partnership. As part of the agreement, Watson agreed to purchase plaintiffs’ stock in the company and agreed to disclose the status of existing and potential contracts with Denim Paper.
{3} In October 1993, two years after the agreement, plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that Watson had made fraudulent misrepresentations about the status of Denim Paper’s negotiations with Levis Strauss & Co. In November 1993, Watson filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to plead fraud with sufficient particularity. In January 1994, the district court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice and allowed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs amended the complaint and Watson filed another motion to dismiss on the same grounds. In April 1994, the district court agreed that the amended complaint again failed to plead fraud with particularity, but still granted the motion in part and denied it in part, allowing the complaint to proceed only as to those areas where plaintiffs’ attorney provided specific responses to the allegations of frаud. The district court also limited discovery and recommended that plaintiffs depose key witnesses so that it could “decide if we have a cause of action here.”
{4} In February 1995, the district court found that no significant action had been taken on the case and, sua sponte, dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of prosecution. Plaintiffs moved to reinstate the case, and despite the motion’s failure to comport with local rules and its characterization by the district court as “the barest motion I’ve seen in ten years on the bench,” the court nonetheless agreed to reinstatement subject to plaintiffs satisfying certain conditions. The conditions included deposing key witnesses by a certain date and preparation of pretrial orders. Plaintiffs failed to comply with the court’s conditions. On June 28, 1995, the district court approved a stipulated dismissal of the complaint and the order was filed on August 15,1995.
{5} Represented by new counsel, plaintiffs filed a Rule 1-060(B)(6) motion for relief from the stipulated dismissal on August 29, 1996, more than one year after the dismissal order was filed. They alleged that then-previous attorney repeatedly misled them and lied about the status of their case well after it was dismissed.
{6} Watson opposed the motion arguing that, based on our reasoning in King v. Lujan, the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief because the statute of limitations had expired on the original cause of action. See King,
{7} Distinguishing the facts of this case frоm King, and relying on Wershaw v. Dimas,
{8} We hold that the district court improperly based its denial of plaintiffs’ motion for lack of jurisdiction on King. In addition, since we conclude that King and Wershaw are both premised on a Rule 1-041(E)(2) NMRA 1999 (as amended through 1990) analysis, which we identify as significantly differеnt than the Rule 1-060(B)(6) motion at issue here, we find that they are not controlling authority in this case. As such, we hold that the Court of Appeals’ decision does not overrule King. We also reverse, the Court of Appeals’ order remanding the matter and conclude that the district court sufficiently addressed the merits of plaintiffs’ motion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion on the merits.
II.
{9} Although we ultimately conclude that the district court’s reliance on King to deny plaintiffs’ motion for lack of jurisdiction was improper, we disagree with Watson’s claim that the Court of Appeals’ opinion in Meiboom overrulеs King. The Court of Appeals correctly determined that King’s analysis of the statute of limitations issue did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction. However, its interpretation and application of Wershaiv and Gathmanr-Matotan to support the conclusion that the district court had jurisdiction in this matter is misplaced.
A.
{10} At the November 1996 hearing to consider plaintiffs’ request for relief, the district court judge denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction concluding “the basis of [my ruling] is basically King v. Lujan.” The Court of Appeals correctly determined that the district court erred by relying on King to conclude that it lacked jurisdiction because the statute of limitations had run.
{11} In King, this Court held that the statute of limitations is not tolled by a suit dismissed without prejudice.
{12} In assessing the applicability of King to the facts of this case, we disagree with the district court’s conclusion that King “must have been a 60(B)(6) case because the reinstatement was well over a year after the order of dismissal for lack of prosecution.” In King, the Court never explicitly states the specific rule by which the moving party sought relief. Our own review of King leads us to conclude that those plaintiffs were seeking relief under Rule 1-041(E)(2), which governs reinstatement of matters dismissed for lack of prosecution. The opinion makes several references to and discusses the guiding principles of Rule 1-041 and makes no reference to Rule 1-060(B)(6). See King,
{13} Thus, we disagree with the district court’s conclusion that based on King, “this Court does not have the jurisdiction to reinstate the case because the statute of limitations ... has passed.” If we were to agree with the district court’s interpretation that King was in fact a Rule 1-060(B)(6) case, it would serve to obviate the underlying purposes of Rule 1-060(B)(6). It would render nonexistent the ability of a court’s equitable powers to grant relief from final judgment in Rule 1-060(B)(6) cases after the statute of limitations has run. See In re Drummond,
{14} We emphasize that we are not overruling King but rather clarifying its scope. Our interpretation does not abrogate King’s principle that “[a] party who has slept on his rights should not be permitted to harass the opposing party with a pending-action for an unreasonable time.” King,
B.
{15} Relying on Wershaw, the Court of Appeals determined that the district court had jurisdiction to consider the merits of plaintiffs’ Rule 1-060(B)(6) motion. Meiboom,
{16} Wershaw held that the expiration of the statute of limitations does not prevent reinstatement of a case where a matter has been dismissed for lack of prosecution upon a showing of good cause.
1
See id. Wershaw stated that because the rules of civil procedure had changed since King, it was unnecessary to file a new complaint to reinstate a case that had been dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution.
{17} We do, however, disagree with the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of Wershaw to the extent that it ignored the different effect that statute of limitations concerns have on Rule 1-041(E)(2) and 1-060(B) motions. See Meiboom,
{18} We disagree. This case does not involve a motion for relief under Rule 1-041(E)(2), nor does the fact that plaintiffs’ case was reinstated subject to conditions that were never satisfied place this matter within the scope of Rule 1-041(E)(2). Both Watson and plaintiffs voluntarily stipulated to a dismissal, and thus the Court of Appeals’ analysis of Rule 1-041(E)(2) and references to King, Gathman-Matotan, and Wershaw are not relevant.
{19} By relying on Wershaw to reverse the district court, the Court of Appeals ignored the significantly different requirements for relief contained in Rules 1-041(E)(2) and 1-060(B)(6). We think it relevant that Wershaw involved a motion timely filed within the thirty-day limit, while here, plaintiffs’ motion for relief was filed over one year after a voluntary dismissal. A party seeking reinstatement under Rule 1-041(E)(2) has thirty days to file a motion. Rule 1-060(B)(6), on the other hand, has no specific time limitation and instead requires only that the motion be filed within a “reasonable time.” Rule 1-041(E)(2) requires only a showing of good cause, see Wershaw
C.
{20} This Court may “аffirm a district court ruling on a ground not relied upon by the district court, [but] will not do so if reliance on the new ground would be unfair to appellant.” State v. Franks,
{21} Having concluded that neither King nor Wershaw are applicable to this case, we now turn to the question of what is procedurally required before a district court can rule on the merits of a Rule 1-060(B)(6) motion. Wе have stated that “[t]he voluntary dismissal of a suit leaves a situation, ... the same as though the suit had never been brought; ... all prior proceedings and orders in the ease are vitiated and annulled, and jurisdiction of the court is immediately terminated.” McCuistion v. McCuistion,
{22} Resolution of this question is not determined only by an assessment of whether the statute of limitations has run. Instead, the language of Rule 1-060(B)(6) states that the motion “shall be made within a reasonable time.” In Freеdman v. Perea, we stated, “The only time limit on a motion seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is that it be made within a reasonable time.”
{23} The reasonable time standard has generally been undefined. In Freedman, this Court stated, ,tWhat constitutes a reasonable time ... depends on the circumstances of each case.”
{24} In attempting to define what constitutes “the circumstances of each case,” reference to federal precedent is instructive. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), which is similar to New Mexico’s Rule 1-060(B)(6), also has a reasonable time provision. In determining whether a 60(b)(6) motion has been timely filed, federal courts have considered numerous factors, including: “the facts of each case, taking into consideration the interest in finality, the reason for delay, the practical ability of the litigant to learn earlier of the grounds relied upon, and [the consideration of] prejudice [if any] to other parties.” Kagan v. Caterpillar Traсtor Co.,
{25} These factors share many similarities with an inquiry on the merits specifically with the factors used to determine whether the moving party has demonstrated “exceptional circumstances,” see discussion infra, Part III. It is important to note that these are two separate, albeit, related inquiries. In some instances, because the facts relevant for a determination of the threshold procedural issue and those used for a determination on the merits, are the same, an examination of whether a motion was filed within a reasonable time will require an examination of the underlying merits of a Rule 1-060(B)(6) motion. Cf. Emergency Beacon Corp.,
{26} In the present case the statute of limitations had expired several months before plaintiffs filed them Rule 1-060(B)(6) motion; additionally, the district court’s findings show that plaintiffs filed their motion more than one year after the stipulated dismissal and approximately three months after plaintiffs state they learned their casе had been voluntarily dismissed. See Meiboom,
III.
{27} Watson challenges the Court of Appeals’ determination that “the parties did not have the opportunity to fully argue the merits of their case ... [and that the] district court [improperly] based its ruling on the statute of limitations.” Meiboom,
A.
{28} A review of the hearing transcript indicates thаt the district court believed that it could deny plaintiffs’ motion both on the jurisdictional question and separately on its merits but believed the jurisdictional issues were dispositive. During the hearing, the court stated that it did not have jurisdiction to reinstate the case because the statute of limitations had run. After briefly discussing the attorney’s conduct and that it was not reasonable for plaintiffs to rely on his assertions, the court stated, “but that’s not the basis of my ruling particularly ... [it is] King v. Lujan.” Based on our foregoing discussion, we agree with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the district court “erred in holding that it did not have jurisdiction to consider Plaintiffs’ motion on the grounds that the statute of limitations had run.” Meiboom,
{29} We review the district court’s ruling on plaintiffs’ Rule 1-060(B)(6) motion for an abuse of discretion. See Desjardin v. Albuquerque Nat’l Bank,
{30} Reviewing the district court’s determination that Rule 1-060(B)(6) did not apply, we conclude that the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ Rule 1-060(B)(6) motion did not exceed the bounds of all reason and that its decision was not arbitrary or unreasonable. Our examination of the record indicates that plaintiffs failed to satisfy the requiremеnts for relief under Rule 1-060(B)(6). Under that rule, a party may seek relief from a final judgment or final order upon a motion filed within a reasonable time for any reason not outlined in Rule 1-060(B)(1)-(5). The language in Rule 1-060(B)(6) does not provide a list of requirements for relief and instead we must turn to common law precedent.
{31} “Rule 60(b)(6) provides a reservoir of equitable power to do justice in a given case, but it is limited to instances where there is a showing of exceptional circumstances.” Battersby v. Bell Aircraft Corp.,
{32} Here, plaintiffs allege that the gross negligence of their attorney is an exceptional circumstance warranting relief. In Ferri, this Court stated that in some circumstances, a moving party falls within the exception to the general rule that a party is bound by the acts and failures of their lawyers.
{33} Under the first prong, parties seeking relief under Rule 1-060(B)(6) must demonstrate the “existence of exceptional circumstances and reasons for relief other than those set out in Rules 1-060(B)(1) through (5).” Id. at 324,
{34} Plaintiffs claim that their attorney dismissed the case without their authority, consent, or knowledge. In addition, they claimed that even “[u]ntil April of 1996, eight months after the stipulated dismissal, their attorney misled Mr. Doberman into believing that the case was still pending and that he was reviewing discovery.” Doberman’s supplemental affidavit included a list of dates and times of one- or two-minute long-distance calls to their attorney’s office and asserts that he inquired about the case and was told that everything was going fine.
{35} Plaintiffs claim that they knew nothing of the dismissals for lack of prosecution or subsequent reinstatements and that they never consented to the stipulated dismissal. In addition, they allege that on several occasions they contacted their attorney to inquire about the status of their ease and were repeatedly told that “things were fine,” even after entry of the final order of dismissal. Assuming arguendo, as the district court did, that plaintiffs’ allegations were true, we could conclude that their attorney’s conduct was suffiсient to rise to the level of gross negligence, satisfying the first requirement under Rule 1-060(B)(6). See L.P. Steuart, Inc. v. Matthews,
{36} To satisfy the second requirement, a moving party has the burden of “demonstratfing] that he or she was diligent in pursuing all claims but was thwarted in those efforts by the gross negligence of the attorney.” Ferri,
{37} The district court found that plaintiffs had not made a prima facie case that it was reasonable to rely on the assertions of their attorney when nothing had happened in their case for a year-and-a-half before the dismissal for lack of prosecution. Having duly considered all of the evidence, the district court properly concluded that plaintiffs, under the Ferri standard, were not diligent in pursuing their claims. In supplemental affidavits detailing phone calls to their attorney, Doberman claims that he inquired about his case; however, he concedes that he was the attorney’s tax consultant and that many of the calls may have been related to tax matters. Although other courts have granted Rule 1-060(B)(6) relief in cases where the moving party establishеd that they took affirmative steps to pursue their claims, we are not mandated to do so. The district court was in a better position than we are, having presided over numerous delays and motions to dismiss and reinstate, to determine, based on all the Rule 1-060(B)(6) motion’s supporting documents, whether plaintiffs failed to actively pursue their claim.
{38} Plaintiffs contend that this holding imposes a heretofore unrecognized duty on plaintiffs to keep abreast of their claims and “make the client responsible for keeping himself independently informed about the status of his case and his legal rights and obligations.” We disagreе. The Ferri standard reflects a balancing of equitable interests between parties. Thus, where a party is seeking relief from a final order, we believe that the moving party should not presumptively be assumed to have acted diligently. .
{39} Under the third prong, the moving party must establish that its underlying claims were legitimate. Although the district court made no specific findings on this issue, we find it instructive that during an earlier hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for reinstatement, the district court allowed plaintiffs’ original attorney to orally respond to the court’s questions concerning plaintiffs’ allegations. We may assume that plaintiffs’ claims, specifiсally those that survived Watson’s two motions to dismiss, were legitimate if the district court saw fit to allow them to continue. Although the district court expressed some reservations about the legitimacy of plaintiffs’ claims due to the limited amount of discovery that had occurred, we will not second guess the district court’s decision to reinstate the case in April 1994.
{40} Finally, the moving party is required to demonstrate there is little likelihood of prejudice to the non-moving party should relief be granted. Cf. Ferri,
{41} Therefore, based on the findings of the district court that there was a substantial likelihood of prejudice to Watson and that the plaintiffs did not diligently pursue their claim, we conclude that plaintiffs failed to satisfy the Rule 1-060(B)(6) requirements for relief under Ferri and hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion.
IV.
{42} For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the Court of Appeals and affirm the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ Rule 1-060(B)(6) motion for relief.
{43} IT IS SO ORDERED
Notes
. We note, however, that if the statute of limitations had expired and the moving party filed outside the thirty-day time limit, relief under Rule 1-041(E)(2) would be denied and the district court would lack jurisdiction to reinstate the case.