scheduled hearing in North Carolina

2012App. 193, 198 , 683 S.E.2d 411, 414 (2009) (quotations and citations omitted). [T]he statute requires that the Department, after making an initial determination that the offender falls into one of the § 14-208.40(a) categories, then notify the individual of that determination and *203 the date of the scheduled hearing.

2011Because the remainder of Defendant’s arguments derive from North Carolina procedural rules, we apply North Carolina law to address these arguments. *337 i: Rule 60 Motion In Defendant’s third argument, he contends the trial court erred by denying Defendant’s Rule 60 motion to set aside the judgment because “confusion existed among the parties as to the scheduled hearing date.” We find this argument without merit. “[T]he standard of review of a trial court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is abuse of discretion.” Davis v. Davis, 360 N.C. 518, 523 , 631 S.E.2d 114, 118 (2006) (citation omitted).

2011Because the remainder of Defendant’s arguments derive from North Carolina procedural rules, we apply North Carolina law to address these arguments. *337 i: Rule 60 Motion In Defendant’s third argument, he contends the trial court erred by denying Defendant’s Rule 60 motion to set aside the judgment because “confusion existed among the parties as to the scheduled hearing date.” We find this argument without merit. “[T]he standard of review of a trial court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is abuse of discretion.” Davis v. Davis, 360 N.C. 518, 523 , 631 S.E.2d 114, 118 (2006) (citation omitted).

2009The trial court found, in pertinent part, that: it appearing that following a scheduled hearing on plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents, the defendants, through counsel, consented to the production of certain documents, including Federal income tax returns for the last two filed returns; *608 it appearing that at the time of the filing of the motion for sanctions the time for production of the documents had passed and that no documents had been produced; it appearing that the responding parties have either chosen in certain instances not to respond, or, even with the benefit of

2009The trial court found, in pertinent part, that: it appearing that following a scheduled hearing on plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents, the defendants, through counsel, consented to the production of certain documents, including Federal income tax returns for the last two filed returns; *608 it appearing that at the time of the filing of the motion for sanctions the time for production of the documents had passed and that no documents had been produced; it appearing that the responding parties have either chosen in certain instances not to respond, or, even with the benefit of

2009The trial court found, in pertinent part, that: it appearing that following a scheduled hearing on plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents, the defendants, through counsel, consented to the production of certain documents, including Federal income tax returns for the last two filed returns; *608 it appearing that at the time of the filing of the motion for sanctions the time for production of the documents had passed and that no documents had been produced; it appearing that the responding parties have either chosen in certain instances not to respond, or, even with the benefit of

1993App. 457, 461 , 179 S.E.2d 177, 180 (1971). *226 The record in the instant case reveals that, although plaintiff’s “Notice of Hearing” was not served on defendant himself, plaintiff properly served the notice on defendant’s attorney, and did so in a timely manner in that it was served by mail on 11 May 1990, more than ten days prior to the scheduled hearing.