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