Borden v. Bau et al
Filing
29
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that Bordin's motion to extend time, (ECF No. 28 ), is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bordin's motion to extend time, (ECF No. 28 ), is construed as his response to the motion to dismiss. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court's March 15, 2024, Minute Order Granting Defendants' Motion as unopposed under Local Rule 7-2(d), (ECF No. 26 ), and the Judgment, (ECF No. 27 ), are SET ASIDE and VACATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to REOPEN this case and REINSTATE the Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 22 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file and serve a reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss on or before April 9, 2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin on 3/26/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - GA)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
***
4
5
6
7
Case No. 3:23-CV-00449-CLB
RICHARD BORDIN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JON RAU, et. al.,
8
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
EXTEND TIME, SETTING ASIDE
DISMISSAL ORDER, REOPENING
CASE, AND REINSTATING MOTION TO
DISMISS
Defendants.
9
[ECF Nos. 26, 27, 28]
10
On March 15, 2024, this Court granted Defendants Jon Rau and Josh Rau’s
11
(collectively referred to as “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss and entered judgment in
12
favor of Defendants after Plaintiff Richard Bordin (“Bordin”) failed to oppose the motion.
13
(ECF Nos. 26, 27.) Bordin has now filed a motion to extend time, which the Court also
14
construes as a response to the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 28).
15
Rule 60(b)(1) allows a court to “relieve a party or its legal representative from a
16
final judgment, order, or proceeding” based on “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
17
excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). To determine whether neglect is excusable,
18
the Court considers “at least four factors” known as the Pioneer-Briones factors: “(1) the
19
danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential
20
impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant
21
acted in good faith.” Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2009)
22
(quoting Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2000)). In light of
23
Bordin’s filing and pro se status, the Court finds that the Pioneer-Briones factors weigh in
24
favor of finding excusable neglect to set aside the dismissal order.
25
26
27
28
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Bordin’s motion to extend time, (ECF No. 28),
is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bordin’s motion to extend time, (ECF No. 28), is
construed as his response to the motion to dismiss.
1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s March 15, 2024, Minute Order
2
Granting Defendants’ Motion as unopposed under Local Rule 7-2(d), (ECF No. 26), and
3
the Judgment, (ECF No. 27), are SET ASIDE and VACATED.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to REOPEN this
case and REINSTATE the Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 22).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file and serve a reply in support
of their Motion to Dismiss on or before April 9, 2024.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: March 26, 2024.
______________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?