Bordin v. Rau

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 26, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00449
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 RICHARD BORDIN, Case No. 3:23-CV-00449-CLB

5 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO Plaintiffs, EXTEND TIME, SETTING ASIDE 6 v. DISMISSAL ORDER, REOPENING

7 JON RAU, et. al., CASE, AND REINSTATING MOTION TO DISMISS

8 Defendants. [ECF Nos. 26, 27, 28] 9 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 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Bordin’s motion to extend time, (ECF No. 28), 26 is GRANTED. 27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bordin’s motion to extend time, (ECF No. 28), is 28 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 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to REOPEN this 5 || case and REINSTATE the Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 22). 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file and serve a reply in support 7 || of their Motion to Dismiss on or before April 9, 2024. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || DATE: March 26, 2024. . 10 11 UNITED qareaunciTi JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28