NEYMAN IDA ROJAS
v.
BEST TAXI SERVICE CORPORATION, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
When a motion for relief from judgment under rule 1.540(b) sets forth a colorable entitlement to relief, the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether relief should be granted.
[1] When a motion for relief from judgment under rule 1.540(b) presents a colorable entitlement to relief based on excusable neglect, the trial court must conduct an evidenti…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Where a motion under rule 1.540(b) sets forth 'a colorable entitlement to relief,' the trial court should conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether such relief should be granted.”
Court's statement of applicable legal standard from Barton Protective Servs. v. Redmon
Neyman Ida Rojas appealed a non-final order denying his motion to vacate a dismissal for lack of service after notice, seeking relief based on excusab…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Colorable Entitlement To Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed September 3, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0989 Lower Tribunal No. 23-11344-CA-01 ________________
Neyman Ida Rojas, Appellant,
vs.
Best Taxi Service Corporation, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David Craig Miller, Judge.
Chad Barr Law, and Chad A. Barr (Altamonte Springs), for appellant.
Michael S. Kaufman, for appellees.
Before LINDSEY, GORDO, and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Neyman Ida Rojas (Plaintiff below) appeals a non-final order denying his Motion to Vacate a Dismissal for lack of service after
2 notice. Rojas requests reversal based on excusable neglect. The trial court denied Rojas relief without an evidentiary hearing. This was error. “Where a motion under rule 1.540(b) sets forth ‘a colorable entitlement to relief,’ the trial court should conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether such relief should be granted.” Barton Protective Servs. v. Redmon, 387 So. 3d 353, 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (quoting Cottrell v. Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortg. Corp., 198 So. 3d 688, 691 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)). “A motion for relief from judgment should not be summarily denied without an evidentiary hearing . . . .” Id. (quoting Schleger v. Stebelsky, 957 So. 2d 71, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)). “Where such a claim is raised and contested, the trial court abuses its discretion in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion.” Id. at 356 (citing Oshana v. Lopiano, 314 So. 3d 311, 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)). “Excusable neglect must be proven by sworn statements or affidavits.” Noel v. James B. Nutter & Co., 232 So. 3d 1112, 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (quoting Elliott v. Aurora Loan Servs. LLC, 31 So. 3d 304, 307 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)). Based on the record before us, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing. Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cottrell v. Taylor, 198 So. 3d 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)
- Schleger v. Stebelsky, 957 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Addison v. City OF Tampa, 31 So. 3d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Saint Luc Jean Noel v. James B. Nutter & Co., 232 So. 3d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Barton Protective Servs., LLC v. Isadora Redmon, 387 So. 3d 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)