Excusable Neglect

1,860 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 85 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• In re Pyramid Energy, Ltd. v. Heyl & Patterson, Inc.
  869 F.2d 1058· 7th Cir.· 1989-02-27 ·cited 16×
  A party is bound by its counsel's actions, and repeated failure to comply with court orders, even due to counsel's dilatory conduct, justifies dismissal with prejudice.
• Ojeda-Toro v. Rivera-Mendez
  853 F.2d 25· 1st Cir.· 1988-08-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a party cannot use Rule 60(b) to evade the consequences of a conscious decision not to appeal, nor can they claim fraud or excusable neglect when they had access to information or were aware of counsel's actions.
• Belcher v. Eileen and Charles Ferrara
  511 So. 2d 1089· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-09-01 ·cited 16×
  This case involves an appeal from an order denying a motion for relief from a $3,000,000 judgment. The appellate court reversed the trial court's initial order vacating the judgment due to lack of jurisdiction while an appeal was pending, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
• In re Chicago Pac. Corp.
  773 F.2d 909· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Organization of Minority Vendors' (OMVI) claim against the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company (Rock Island) was untimely and barred by laches and estoppel, regardless of how the claim was characterized.
• Kindle Trucking Co. v. Marmar Corp.
  468 So. 2d 502· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-05-09 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to set aside the clerk's default because the defendant demonstrated excusable neglect and a meritorious defense.
• Williams v. Rosetta Roundtree
  464 So. 2d 1293· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-03-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the unique circumstances of this case, involving misinformation from court personnel leading to a missed appeal deadline, fall within the ambit of Rule 1.540 for clerical mistake or excusable neglect.
• Canney v. Canney
  453 So. 2d 179· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-07-20 ·cited 16×
  The appellate court held that the trial court erred in refusing to hear the wife's motion to set aside a default judgment without considering its merits.
• Campbell v. W.R. Bowlin
  724 F.2d 484· 5th Cir.· 1984-02-06 ·cited 16×·via Excusable Neglect Standard
  The court held that a post-judgment motion for attorney's fees is not a Rule 59(e) motion, thus not triggering the need for a new notice of appeal. The court also held that a directed verdict was inappropriate where credibility determinations were necessary.
• Drexel Props., Inc. v. Brown
  443 So. 2d 150· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-12-12 ·cited 16×
• The Mennen Co. v. The Gillette Co.
  719 F.2d 568· 2d Cir.· 1983-10-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that Mennen's failure to file a timely notice of appeal was excusable neglect due to misleading actions by the district court clerk, entitling them to an extension.
• Cessna Fin. Corp. v. Bielenberg Masonry Contracting, Inc.
  715 F.2d 1442· 10th Cir.· 1983-08-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a party's misunderstanding of legal liability and failure to consult counsel after repeated warnings does not constitute excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1).
• Curacao Drydock Co. v. The M/V Akritas
  710 F.2d 204· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-25 ·cited 16×
  The notice of appeal in an admiralty case must be filed within the time limits set by Fed.R.App.P. 4, like all other civil cases, and the court lacks authority to extend this deadline.
• Columbia GAS Transmission Corp. v. Allied Chem. Corp.
  652 F.2d 503· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the "inadvertence" clause in the contracts excused failure to provide notice if unintentional, even if negligent, and that the Moffett Group and Mid-Continent did not violate the NGA by surrendering leasehold interests, as this merely shifted control rather th
• ODA v. Transcon Lines Corp.
  650 F.2d 231· 10th Cir.· 1981-06-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant an extension for filing a notice of appeal ex parte after the initial filing period expired, and thus the appeal was dismissed.
• Shephard Arnold Meggett v. Louie L. Wainwright
  642 F.2d 95· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the appeal must be considered under the prior rule regarding timely notice of appeal due to the filing date.
• Nat'l Premium Budget Plan Corp. v. ALL Am. Assurance Co.
  389 So. 2d 324· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-10-21 ·cited 16×
  Florida appellate court reversed trial court's order vacating a default judgment, holding that a defendant's reliance on another to defend and a corporate office move do not constitute excusable neglect warranting relief from default.
• United States v. Shillingford
  568 F.2d 1106· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that an untimely notice of appeal may be permitted if the district court finds excusable neglect.
• Butler v. Stover Bros. Trucking Co.
  546 F.2d 544· 7th Cir.· 1977-01-10 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the clerk's entry of judgment was void because it was made contrary to the court's implied intent to delay entry pending post-trial motions, making the defendants' notice of appeal timely. The court also held that collateral estoppel was improperly applied bec
• Schaefer v. First Nat'l Bank OF Lincolnwood
  465 F.2d 234· 7th Cir.· 1972-07-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that granting a Rule 54(b) order more than thirty days after the entry of the adjudication, without substantial justification and due to plaintiff's delay, constitutes an abuse of discretion and warrants dismissal of the appeal.
• Hardy Jackson v. Sheriff Bill Decker
  451 F.2d 348· 5th Cir.· 1971-11-19 ·cited 16×
  The appellate court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
• Gann v. Smith
  443 F.2d 352· 5th Cir.· 1971-05-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a deliberate decision not to appeal, followed by a change of mind after the deadline, does not constitute excusable neglect to justify an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
• Diffenderfer v. Porter Homer
  408 F.2d 1344· 5th Cir.· 1969-02-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting an extension of time to file an appeal ex parte after the original appeal period had expired, rendering the appeal untimely.
• Jasper L. Lowry v. The Long Island Rail Rd. Co.
  370 F.2d 911· 2d Cir.· 1966-12-30 ·cited 16×
  The denial of an extension of time to appeal was not an abuse of discretion because the appellant failed to demonstrate excusable neglect for the delay in filing the notice of appeal.
• Nederlandsche Handel-Maatschappij v. JAY EMM, Inc.
  301 F.2d 114· 2d Cir.· 1962-03-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the default judgment.
• Rutland Transit Co. v. Chicago Tunnel Terminal Co. & Chicago Tunnel Terminal Corp.
  233 F.2d 655· 7th Cir.· 1956-05-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendants' repeated delays and failure to present a defense constituted inexcusable neglect, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying their motion to vacate the default judgment.
• West v. United States
  222 F.2d 774· D.C. Cir.· 1954-04-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the 60-day period for appeal began when the defendant reasonably relied on the incorrect date provided by the Clerk, and granted leave to apply to the District Court for permission to appeal in forma pauperis.
• Hepburn v. ALL Am. Gen. Constr. Corp.
  954 So. 2d 1250· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-04-25 ·cited 15×
  Sally Hepburn obtained a default final judgment against All American General Construction Corporation for misleading advertising. The trial court granted All American's motion to vacate the judgment four months after All American received notice of the default. The appellate cour
• Hornblower v. Toynetta C. Cobb
  932 So. 2d 402· Fla. 2d DCA· 2006-04-07 ·cited 15×
  Dale Hornblower appeals the denial of his motion to vacate a clerk's default and for a new trial stemming from a 2001 auto accident. The court affirmed the denial of the default motion but reversed the nonjury trial ruling, holding that jury trial rights cannot be waived by mere
• Markowski v. Attel Bank Int'l
  701 So. 2d 416· Fla. 3d DCA· 1997-11-12 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment because the defendant demonstrated excusable neglect, a meritorious defense, and acted with due diligence.
• Schauer v. Coleman
  639 So. 2d 637· Fla. 2d DCA· 1994-07-01 ·cited 15×
  The Schauers obtained a default judgment for specific performance against the Colemans for breach of a property purchase agreement. Four months later, the Colemans moved to set aside the final judgment under Rule 1.540, claiming fraud and the lack of counsel at the default hearin
• Arango v. Alvarez
  585 So. 2d 1131· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-09-17 ·cited 15×
  A trial court does not abuse its discretion in entering a default judgment against pro se litigants for willful failure to appear at a calendar call, particularly where the litigants have demonstrated a pattern of disobeying earlier court orders. However, attorney's fees must be
• LEE v. Coahoma Cnty.
  937 F.2d 220· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-05 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the deputies' amended notice of appeal was timely filed under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(3), and that certain rest breaks were compensable under FLSA § 7(k).
• Pelican Prod. Corp. v. Marino
  893 F.2d 1143· 10th Cir.· 1990-01-08 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pelican's Rule 60(b) motion for relief from a default judgment and in adopting the magistrate's award of attorney fees.
• Shaffer v. Williams
  794 F.2d 1030· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-21 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of a RICO enterprise, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial.
• United States v. Avendano-Camacho
  786 F.2d 1392· 9th Cir.· 1986-04-14 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the differing time limits for government and individual appeals do not violate equal protection, and that untimely filing due to attorney neglect does not constitute excusable neglect to grant an extension.
• Niki Unlimited, Inc. v. Legal Servs. OF Greater Miami
  483 So. 2d 46· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-01-14 ·cited 15×
  Niki Unlimited appealed the denial of its motion to set aside a final judgment awarding attorney's fees to Legal Services of Greater Miami. The court affirmed, holding that because the motion for attorney's fees was heard on the merits rather than entered by default, Niki's failu
• Rhines v. Rhines
  483 So. 2d 4· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-10-04 ·cited 15×
  A husband appealed a final judgment dissolving his marriage and awarding custody of the minor children to the wife. The court affirmed the judgment on the procedural default issue but reversed and remanded regarding child custody, finding the trial court failed to comply with sta
• Zwickel v. KLC, Inc.
  464 So. 2d 1280· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-03-05 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to set aside the default because the attorney's confusion regarding companion cases constituted excusable neglect.
• Gibbs v. Maxwell House
  738 F.2d 1153· 11th Cir.· 1984-08-09 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's second motion for relief under Rule 60(b) because the payment of sanctions did not satisfy the dismissal judgment and the judgment was not prospective.
• Smith v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc.
  448 So. 2d 62· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-04-10 ·cited 15×
  A court of equity may relieve a tenant from forfeiture of a lease where the tenant defaults, even if the owner has not waived the default, if enforcing the forfeiture would be unconscionable, inequitable, or unjust.
• Greear v. Greear
  288 F.2d 466· 9th Cir.· 1961-03-29 ·cited 15×
  The court held that a motion to remand for reconsideration of prior orders should first be filed in the district court under Rule 60(b).
• Booth v. Carnival Corp.
  522 F.3d 1148· 11th Cir.· 2008-04-01 ·cited 14×
  A cruise passenger's estate filed a wrongful death suit in state court within the contractual limitation period, but the state court dismissed it for improper venue. The estate then filed an identical federal suit after the limitation period expired. The Eleventh Circuit held tha
• Kevin v. Brown
  884 So. 2d 1065· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-10-15 ·cited 14×
  Kevin V. Brown appeals the dismissal of his personal injury negligence action. The court reverses, holding that dismissal with prejudice was improper because the complaint was timely filed within the statute of limitations and pro se pleadings are entitled to liberal construction
• S.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Families
  877 So. 2d 831· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-07-07 ·cited 14×
  A Florida appellate court affirmed the termination of a mother's parental rights based on her default after she failed to appear at a June 2003 hearing, despite being offered the accommodation of appearing by telephone from Virginia. The mother's inconsistent explanations for her
• Hill v. Murphy
  872 So. 2d 919· Fla. 2d DCA· 2003-09-12 ·cited 14×
  Hill appeals the trial court's order denying his motion to set aside a default judgment entered against him in a construction dispute. The court reversed the default judgment due to lack of notice of the hearing on unliquidated damages but affirmed the denial to set aside the und
• City OF Pembroke Pines v. Zitnick
  792 So. 2d 677· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-08-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion to vacate the order compelling arbitration because the city's absence from the hearing was due to excusable neglect, and the city is not obligated to arbitrate when the union, which controls the arbitration step, dec
• Steinhardt v. Intercondominium Grp., Inc.
  771 So. 2d 614· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-11-22 ·cited 14×
  A Florida appellate court reversed a trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss a counterclaim filed against a deceased plaintiff, holding that claims of excusable neglect for failure to move for substitution within ninety days must be proven by sworn evidence, not mere counsel
• Hully v. Hully
  653 So. 2d 1138· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-04-28 ·cited 14×
  In a dissolution of marriage case, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's entry of default against the husband and the resulting final judgment, holding that the husband's procedural due process rights were violated when he was forced to choose between pr
• Pearson v. Gatto
  933 F.2d 521· 7th Cir.· 1991-05-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court should have liberally construed the pro se plaintiff's letter as an amended complaint, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing a late notice of appeal.
• Slaughter v. S. Talc Co.
  919 F.2d 304· 5th Cir.· 1990-12-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting partial summary judgment because the expert testimony relied on unreliable sources and the court properly refused to consider untimely affidavits.