look at (1) whether the circumstances involved were under a party’s own control, In re Payless Cashways, Inc., 230 B.R. 120, 139 (8th Cir.BAP1999); United States ex rel. Elec. Mach. Enters, of P.R., Inc. v. Fraya, 170 F.R.D. 346, 349 (D.P.R.1997); In re Diggs, 220 B.R. 247, 252 (Bkrtcy.M.D.N.C.1998), and (2) whether the party was paying appropriate attention to the matter in light of the surrounding circumstances. Dishman v. Dishman, 37 N.C.App. 543, 246 S.E.2d 819, 822 (1978). The courts have been reluctant to find excusable neglect in circumstances where ealled-for action was under the control of the party seeking relief and that party failed to act reasonably to make sure that the act was performed. United States ex rel. Elec. Mach. Enters. of P.R., Inc. v. Fraya, 170 F.R.D. at 349 (<HOLDING>); In re Bautista, 235 B.R. 678, 682
holding because trial court fully considered plaintiffs response to summary judgment motion failure to render summary judgment without notice or hearing harmless thus trial court was not required to vacate the summary judgment and then reinstate it to accomplish the same end holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding that arguments not presented to the district court in response to a motion for summary judgment are waived holding that assuming that a secretary had filed a response to a summary judgment motion was not excusable neglect holding that a plaintiff may not raise a new legal claim in response to summary judgment