of determining whether a denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion, each case is sui generis."). We have granted relief when the appealing litigant was reasonably surprised by the deadline or the action of the court, or the events leading to the contested decision were unfair. See United States v. Fraya, 145 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1998) (reversing grant of summary judgment where non-moving party’s delay was attributable to “an ambiguity in the Local Rules” and a snafu in the district court clerk’s office); United States v. Roberts, 978 F.2d 17, 20-21 (1st Cir.1992) (overturning grant of motion to suppress when government’s failure to respond was due to “interlocking rules ... freighted with ambiguity”); see also Douglas v. York County, 360 F.3d 286, 290-91 (1st Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Resolution Trust Corp. v. North Bridge
holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to alteramend judgment where the plaintiff raised the choice of law issue for the first time after the entry of summary judgment holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to deny a motion for reconsideration where the motion presented nothing new and merely rephrased allegations in the complaint holding that it was simply unfair and an abuse of discretion for district court to deny nonmoving partys motion for reconsideration of summary judgment after the court had switched the basic issue without giving the parties adequate warning holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny an award of attorneys fees to the wife holding it was not an abuse of discretion to deny funds