-
Fla. 3d DCA·
2019-05-29
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying BAS's motion to set aside the default judgment because BAS failed to establish both excusable neglect and due diligence, the latter being demonstrated by BAS's delay of nearly five months in filing its motion after receiving
-
Fla. 5th DCA·
2019-04-12
The trial court's denial of Redmond's motion for relief from final judgment was affirmed because Redmond failed to demonstrate excusable neglect for not filing an answer to the complaint and failed to show due diligence by waiting nearly seven months to seek relief. Although the
-
248 F.R.D. 319·
M.D. Fla.·
2013-02-04
The court held that the plaintiff's counsel failed to demonstrate excusable neglect for the late filing of a motion to substitute a party after the plaintiff's death, and thus the action was properly dismissed.
-
32 So. 3d 722·
Fla. 5th DCA·
2010-04-09
The Florida Department of Financial Services imposed an eighteen-month suspension of Seavor's insurance license after she failed to timely file a petition for an administrative hearing on alleged statutory violations. The court affirmed the dismissal of her petition and denial of
-
M.D. Fla.·
2006-03-10
The district court vacated its prior order and remanded the bankruptcy court's denial of a motion for reconsideration and extension of time to the bankruptcy court for a determination of excusable neglect.
-
841 So. 2d 593·
Fla. 4th DCA·
2003-04-02
A represented party's failure to attend trial due to lack of personal notice is not excusable neglect under Rule 1.540(b) when notice was properly given to her attorney and her ignorance of the trial date resulted from her own failure to keep counsel informed of her address.
-
777 So. 2d 1148·
Fla. 3d DCA·
2001-02-14
A trial court's dismissal for willful failure to comply with court orders and discovery requests may not be vacated under Rule 1.540(b)(1) where the original dismissal orders expressly contain findings of willful conduct, and the moving party fails to demonstrate mistake, inadver
-
975 F.2d 916·
1st Cir.·
1992-08-17
The court held that the motion to amend judgment was untimely under Rule 59(e) and therefore did not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal.
-
956 F.2d 509·
5th Cir.·
1992-03-31
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction because the appellant failed to file a timely notice of appeal and the district court abused its discretion in allowing an untimely amended notice.
-
932 F.2d 1272·
8th Cir.·
1991-05-15
The district court properly dismissed the appeal as untimely due to failure to file the notice of appeal and record designation within the required timeframes.