RYMED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

v.

KIG, LLC, ET AL.,

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Purdue v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 259 So. 3d 918, 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (“[C]laim that [movant] did not receive the master dismissal order is generally cognizable under rule 1.540(b)(1).”); John Deere Const. & Forestry Co. v. Lorelys Elec. Corp., 69 So. 3d 1099, 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (affirming rule 1.540(b)(2) relief where record showed court could have granted identical relief under 1.540(b)(1)); Okeechobee Imps., Inc. v. Am. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Fla., 558 So. 2d 506, 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (rule 1.540(b)(1) relief granted where complaint became lost by being accidentally placed in non-litigation related file dealing with same subject); Carter, Hawley, Hale Stores, Inc. v. Whitman, 516 So. 2d 83, 83-84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (finding mistake under 1.540(b)(1) where complaint “became ‘lost’ in a pile of unrelated documents”); Falkner v. Amerifirst Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 489 So. 2d 758, 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (courts “obligated to grant relief” where “uncontroverted facts showed [movants] did not receive notice”); Francisco v. Victoria Marine Shipping, Inc., 486 So. 2d 1386, 1389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (observing that motions for rehearing and for relief from judgment are “[b]oth mechanisms [that] provide a mode of attacking a final judgment”); Gibson v. Buice, 381 So. 2d 349, 351-52 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (holding rules 1.540(a) and 1.540(b) available, “[w]here the excusable neglect relied upon is lack of notice of the rendition of a final judgment”).