by others that are not contrary to the allegations of the moving party and which may put the moving party’s allegations in an appropriate context. Id. at 777; 779. Whether a party makes a prima facie ease to modify custody is dispositive of whether an evi-dentiary hearing will occur on the motion. See Morey v. Peppin, 375 N.W.2d 19, 25 (Minn.1985) (stating “an evidentiary hearing shall be scheduled” if moving party makes a prima facie case to modify custody); Nice-Petersen v. Nice-Petersen, 310 N.W.2d 471, 472 (Minn.1981) (stating if moving party fails to make prima facie case, district court “[is] require[d] ... to deny [the] motion”). A district court, however, has discretion in deciding whether a moving party makes a prima facie case to modify custody. See Geibe, 571 N.W.2d at 780 (<HOLDING>). Here, a major part of father’s endangerment
holding district court did not abuse discretion in ruling moving party failed to make prima facie case to modify custody holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in reconsidering a prior interlocutory ruling holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review holding trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling based only on affidavits holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling whether to proceed with a declaratory judgment action