context: In cases that have not been heard on the merits, the determination of whether neglect is excusable takes into account the length and reasons for the delay, the impact on the case and judicial proceedings, and whether the movant requesting relief has acted in good faith. See Burnley v. Bosch Ams.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 75 Fed.Appx. 329, 333
citation_a.parenthetical: considering the reasons for the delay and the impact on the nonmoving party in determining that the moving party did not meet the test of excusable neglect
citation_a.sentence: Corp., 75 Fed.Appx. 329, 333 (6th Cir.2003) (unpublished) (considering the reasons for the delay and the impact on the nonmoving party in determining that the moving party did not meet the test of excusable neglect); see also Jinks v. AlliedSignal, Inc., 250 F.3d 381, 386 (6th Cir.2001) (defining a more lenient standard for excusable neglect in cases of default than in cases when a party neglects to raise a certain argument).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 250 F.3d 381, 386
citation_b.parenthetical: defining a more lenient standard for excusable neglect in cases of default than in cases when a party neglects to raise a certain argument
citation_b.sentence: Corp., 75 Fed.Appx. 329, 333 (6th Cir.2003) (unpublished) (considering the reasons for the delay and the impact on the nonmoving party in determining that the moving party did not meet the test of excusable neglect); see also Jinks v. AlliedSignal, Inc., 250 F.3d 381, 386 (6th Cir.2001) (defining a more lenient standard for excusable neglect in cases of default than in cases when a party neglects to raise a certain argument).