good cause. Floyd, 900 F.2d at 1047; see also Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Reeves (In re Reeves), 127 B.R. 866, 868 (Bankr.S.D.Cal.1991) (“a court must determine on the facts of each ease whether good cause has been shown.”). Although a court may raise the issue sua sponte, the court must ensure that the plaintiff had notice and an opportunity to be heard on the issue. See Heinz, 131 B.R. at 42. The Seventh Circuit has held that attorney neglect, standing alone, is insufficient to constitute good cause. Floyd, 900 F.2d at 1047 (“simple attorney neglect, without the presence of substantial extenuating factors such as sudden illness or natural disaster, cannot constitute the sole basis for a ‘good cause’ determination.”); see also, Gabriel v. United States, 30 F.3d 75, 77 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Powell, 866 F.2d at 965 (“Neglect by
holding no justifiable reliance as a matter of law holding that plaintiffs alleged reliance on agents alleged representation that credit insurance was necessary was as a matter of law not reasonable since the uncontroverted evidence demonstrated that the terms of the contract were made available to and read by the insured holding that in an environmental contamination ease a cause of action accrues  when a plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of his or her cause of action and of the identity of a party or parties who may be responsible for the injury holding that failure to carefully read rule 4 or relevant ease law in reliance on statement of employee of district court clerks office was not good cause holding that plaintiff failed to prove reasonable reliance on a false statement