proceeding. 4. The Reasons FOR Dr. Dave’s Failure to Meet the Filing Deadline Dr. Dave’s excusable neglect argument hinges on his reasons for failing to file his one-page proof of claim before the July 21, 1993 deadline. After the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, the courts have emphasized that the reasons leading to the delay remain a very important — perhaps the single most important-factor in determining whether neglect should be excusable. Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 76 F.3d 530, 534 (4th Cir.1996); City of Chanute v. Williams Natural Gas Co., 31 F.3d 1041, 1046 (10th Cir.1994); Thomas v. Board of Educ., 177 F.R.D. 488, 489-90 (D.Kan.1997). In evaluating the reasons for delay, cour a.1999) (<HOLDING>); In re Diggs, 220 B.R. at 252 (holding that
holding that failure to accurately calculate the thirtyday appeal period is not excusable neglect holding that the states failure to object to a late petition for appeal of a termination order granted by the trial court on the basis of excusable neglect constituted a waiver of the states right to contest excusable neglect on appeal to the court of appeals holding plaintiff bears the burden of showing that delay was due to oversight inadvertence or excusable neglect holding that the concept of excusable neglect could not be invoked to gloss over a failure to take minimum safeguards for determining that action is being taken holding that to obtain relief under rule 60b1 on grounds of excusable neglect the movant must also demonstrate prima facie evidence of a meritorious defense