Cited by

¶14 “The general test of what is excusable is whether the neglect or inadvertence is such as might be the act of a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances.” Coconino Pulp &

We will also sustain a court’s denial of a Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment “unless ‘undisputed facts and circumstances require a contrary ruling.’” (quoting Coconino Pulp & ).

(quoting Coconino Pulp & ).

Whether the neglect or inadvertence is excusable depends on what “might be the act of a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances.” Coconino Pulp &

¶15 “The general test of what is excusable is whether the neglect or inadvertence is such as might be the act of a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances.” Coconino Pulp &

(citing Coconino Pulp & ).

at 332, and the lawyer reasonably relied on his legal assistant, having no reason to distrust her based on past performance or prior “inefficiency or undependability,” Coconino Pulp & (“[C]lerical and secretarial errors .

require a contrary ruling as a matter of law.” Coconino Pulp & (applying Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 60); see also Duckstein, 230 Ariz. at 231, ¶ 8 (because language of ARFLP 85(b) is “substantially the same as the language” in Ariz. R. Civ.

require a contrary ruling as a matter of law.” Coconino Pulp & (applying Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 60); see also ARFLP 85 cmt.

.’”) (quoting Coconino Pulp & ); United Metro Materials, Inc. v. Pena Blanca Properties, L.L.C., ¶ 22 (App. 2000) (concluding the superior court did not abuse its discretion by granting the defendant an extension of time to file a Rule 59 motion where counsel avowed he did not receive notice of the judgment and the r

-32 (1985) (citing Coconino Pulp & ).

ranting an extension of time pursuant to Rule 6(b), we reject 6 ASHBY v. BIGLOW Decision of the Court her argument.5 Neglect is excusable when “the neglect or inadvertence is such as might be the act of a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances.” Coconino Pulp & (citation omitted).

v. Geyler, -32 (1985) (citing Coconino Pulp & ).

v. Geyler, -32 (1985) (citing Coconino Pulp & ).

Comm’n, , (untimely request for review in an administrative action); Wilshire Mortgage Corp. v. Elmer Shelton Concrete Contractor, Inc., , (untimely answer leading to a default judgment); Coconino Pulp & , (same); Kohlbeck v. Handley, 3 Ariz.App.

We review a trial court’s decision denying a motion to set aside a judgment for an abuse of discretion and affirm “unless ‘undisputed facts and circumstances require a contrary ruling.’ ” , (quoting Coconino Pulp & , ).

be equated”); Coconino Pulp & (overturning trial court’s refusal to set aside default judgment, supreme court noted when “undisputed facts and circumstances as shown in this case require a contrary ruling as a matter of law this court will reverse”); (A

[often] excusable”) quoting D , see also Coconino Pulp & -21 , -53 (1957) (granting relief based on attorney’s reasonable reliance on secretary to notify him of due date for answering complaint when “through some inadvertent clerical error the lawyer [had not been] informed”).

¶ 15 “The general test of what is excusable is whether the neglect or inadvertence is such as might be the act of a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances.” Coconino Pulp &amp

7 See, , , , Coconino Pulp & P.2d 550 (1957).

Neglect is excusable if it “might be the act of a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances.” Geyler, 144 Ariz. at 331 , 697 P.2d at 1081 ( , ).

469, 472 , (setting aside a default because inexperienced secretary failed to enter deadline on calendar); Coconino Pulp & , (holding that a secretary’s failure to deliver calendar sheet was excusable neglect).