Excusable Neglect

1,860 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Dane Cnty. Dairy
  795 F.2d 1313· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the respondents failed to show good cause for their untimely answer and that the Board's finding of alter ego status was supported by substantial evidence.
• Polylok Corp. v. Wellington M. Manning, Jr.
  793 F.2d 1318· D.C. Cir.· 1986-06-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an appeal filed after the deadline, even if prompted by a Rule 60(b) motion to vacate and re-enter judgment due to lack of notice, is untimely if at least one party had notice of the original judgment.
• In re Salem Mortg. Co. v. Owsianowski
  791 F.2d 456· 6th Cir.· 1986-05-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of showing justification for their oversight in signing a stipulation.
• Quality Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Seymour Elec. Supply Co., Inc.
  487 So. 2d 80· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-04-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to set aside the default judgment, as the appellant demonstrated excusable neglect and a meritorious defense.
• Ashby Enters., Ltd. v. Weitzman
  780 F.2d 1043· D.C. Cir.· 1986-01-14 ·cited 6×
  The court emphasizes that Rule 60(b) cannot be used to bypass time limits for appeals by vacating and reinstating judgments.
• Marine Outlet v. Miner
  469 So. 2d 251· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-05-29 ·cited 6×
  Marine Outlet appeals the trial court's denial of its motion to vacate a clerk's default in a personal injury case brought by two elderly women injured by a dog attack. The appellate court held that the trial judge abused his discretion by refusing to vacate the default, finding
• Savings v. Sober
  455 So. 2d 1161· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-09-25 ·cited 6×
• Corey v. Mast Rd. Grain & Bldg. Materials Co., Inc.
  738 F.2d 11· 1st Cir.· 1984-06-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion for relief from a judgment of dismissal.
• Abel v. Friday Night Invs., Inc.
  419 So. 2d 1135· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-09-21 ·cited 6×
• Indian Head Nat'l Bank OF Nashua v. Brunelle
  689 F.2d 245· 1st Cir.· 1982-09-09 ·cited 6×
  A registration court errs in entertaining a Rule 60(b) motion that alleges neither a judgment void for lack of personal jurisdiction nor grounds that would support an independent equitable action.
• Meza v. Wash. State Dep't OF Soc. & Health Servs.
  683 F.2d 314· 9th Cir.· 1982-08-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state's motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, based on excusable neglect, was insufficient, and therefore both the state's and the plaintiff's notices of appeal were untimely.
• Whittlesey v. Weyerhauser Co.
  640 F.2d 739· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the bankruptcy judge did not abuse discretion in entering default judgments, but erred in stacking damages and attorney fees against jointly and severally liable parties.
• Midway Indus. Contractors, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n & Sec'y of Labor
  616 F.2d 346· 7th Cir.· 1980-02-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the deadline for filing a petition for review of an OSHA order is jurisdictional and cannot be extended by a finding of excusable neglect.
• Genova Dominguez v. United States
  583 F.2d 615· 2d Cir.· 1978-09-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the dismissal, as the counsel's prolonged inaction did not constitute excusable neglect.
• The United States v. Bruckmann
  582 F.2d 622· C.C.P.A.· 1978-08-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Bruckmann's cross-appeal was untimely because Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) does not apply to appeals from the Customs Court, and the statutory period under 28 U.S.C. § 2601 was not met.
• In re Best Distrib. Co. v. Wells Fargo Bank
  576 F.2d 1360· 9th Cir.· 1978-05-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a petition for review of a bankruptcy judge's order is untimely if the extension for filing is not itself granted within the initial ten-day period prescribed by § 39 c of the Bankruptcy Act.
• Hamilton v. Bogorad
  275 So. 2d 41· Fla. 3d DCA· 1973-03-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion to set aside a default judgment against individual defendants when notice was sent to an ineffective address, despite knowledge of the attorney's relocation and voluntary submission to jurisdiction.
• In re Knox v. Kal W. Lines
  463 F.2d 561· 9th Cir.· 1972-06-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that bankruptcy courts have equitable discretion to permit late objections to a trustee's report under General Order 17, especially when the delay is minor and justified.
• Bennett v. Halper
  248 So. 2d 522· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-05-25 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 1.540(b)(1), finding that defendant-attorney Bennett failed to demonstrate excusable neglect for missing the deadline to appeal after the oral denial of his motion for rehearing.
• THE Florida BAR v. Charles
  201 So. 2d 713· Fla.· 1967-05-31 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Bar sought disciplinary action against attorney William W. Charles for converting $20,000 in client trust funds to his own use and subsequently issuing a worthless check to cover the shortfall. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the Board of Governors' decision to dis
• Sutherland v. Fitzgerald
  291 F.2d 846· 10th Cir.· 1961-05-31 ·cited 6×
  A Rule 60(b) motion does not revive an untimely motion for a new trial to extend the time for appeal. The appeal from the original judgment is dismissed, but the denial of Rule 60(b) relief is affirmed.
• DAL Int'l Trading Co. v. Sword Line, Inc.
  286 F.2d 523· 2d Cir.· 1961-02-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a party cannot be relieved from a stipulation based on a mistaken assessment of evidence after the arrangement proceeding has been consummated.
• Troyit Robinson v. United States
  260 F.2d 718· D.C. Cir.· 1958-10-02 ·cited 6×
  The District Court cannot enlarge the time for taking an appeal, even for excusable neglect, as the time is jurisdictional and fixed by rule.
• Hewett v. Hewett
  65 So. 2d 51· Fla.· 1953-05-15 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court quashed a trial court order extending the deadline for taking testimony because the motion to extend contained no statement of good cause as required by the equity rules. The decision reinforces that courts lack discretion to extend testimony deadlines a
• Coskery v. Roberts & Mander Corp.
  189 F.2d 234· 3d Cir.· 1951-05-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an order denying a petition to vacate an equity receivership is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(2), absent exceptional circumstances not present here. The court also found that the district court had jurisdiction over the underlyin
• Parrish v. United States
  605 U.S. 376· U.S.· 2025-06-12 ·cited 5×
  A federal inmate's notice of appeal filed after the ordinary 60-day deadline but before the district court granted his motion to reopen the appeal period was timely under the relation-forward doctrine, requiring no second notice of appeal after reopening. The Supreme Court revers
• Vincenzo Bruno v. Drechsler
  342 So. 3d 748· Fla. 3d DCA· 2024-01-17 ·cited 5×
  A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to vacate a default judgment when the defendant fails to demonstrate excusable neglect, a meritorious defense, and due diligence in seeking relief.
• Burke v. Soles
  326 So. 3d 83· Fla. 4th DCA· 2021-08-18 ·cited 5×
  When a motion for rehearing alleges facts that suggest excusable neglect, the trial court must either conduct a limited evidentiary hearing on the motion or grant the requested relief.
• Contreras v. Stambul, LLC
  306 So. 3d 1143· Fla. 3d DCA· 2020-08-26 ·cited 5×
  The appellate court reversed the denial of a motion to vacate a clerk's default and default final judgment. The court held that the default was improperly entered because the plaintiff was aware the defendants were represented by counsel intending to defend the action.
• Stanislav Kotlyar v. Metro. Cas. Ins. Co.
  192 So. 3d 562· Fla. 4th DCA· 2016-05-18 ·cited 5×
  Stanislav Kotlyar appeals a default judgment entered by the trial court in favor of Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company in a subrogation action arising from a motor vehicle collision. The Fourth District reversed, holding that the damages claimed were unliquidated and require
• Arcila v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P.
  145 So. 3d 897· Fla. 2d DCA· 2014-08-06 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a trial court errs in granting a motion to vacate a dismissal for lack of prosecution without first holding an evidentiary hearing and affording the opposing party an opportunity to be heard.
• S2 Global, Inc. v. Tactical Operational Support Servs., LLC
  119 So. 3d 1280· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-09-04 ·cited 5×
  S2 Global and related entities challenged a trial court's dismissal of their Florida lawsuit on forum non conveniens grounds. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the defendants' motion to dismiss was untimely under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061(g),
• Whitney v. A Aventura Chiropractic Care Ctr., Inc.
  21 So. 3d 95· Fla. 3d DCA· 2009-10-21 ·cited 5×
  A pro se defendant appealed an order denying his motion to set aside a default judgment entered in 1993. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate excusable neglect, due diligence, or a meritorious defense required to vacate the defaul
• Est. of Miller Ex Rel. Miller v. Thrifty Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc.
  609 F. Supp. 2d 1235· M.D. Fla.· 2009-04-10 ·cited 5×
  The court determined that Florida law, specifically the Fabre defense, does not apply to the apportionment of liability in this case because Florida lacks a sufficient interest. The court found that South Africa and Oklahoma have interests in applying their respective laws.
• In re Est. OF William R. Cummins v. Bowman
  979 So. 2d 984· Fla. 3d DCA· 2008-02-13 ·cited 5×
  The Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA) pre-emption provision, 21 U. S. C. § 360k, preempts state-law requirements that differ from federal requirements, including common-law duties.
• Golden Gate Homes, L.C. v. L & G Eng'g Servs., Inc.
  974 So. 2d 489· Fla. 3d DCA· 2008-01-30 ·cited 5×
  The court held that Golden Gate's motion to reinstate its complaint was untimely and insufficient to set aside the dismissal, affirming the trial court's decision.
• J.M. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families
  938 So. 2d 620· Fla. 5th DCA· 2006-10-05 ·cited 5×
  In a parental rights termination case, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of a motion to set aside a default judgment, holding that the Department of Children and Families failed to conduct a diligent search before resorting to constructi
• Bray v. Grabowski
  905 So. 2d 153· Fla. 3d DCA· 2004-12-29 ·cited 5×
  The court held that attorneys fees cannot be awarded when the motion is untimely and there is no reservation of jurisdiction within the required period or a showing of excusable neglect.
• Armet S.N.C. di Ferronato Giovanni & Co. v. Hornsby
  744 So. 2d 1119· Fla. 1st DCA· 1999-10-12 ·cited 5×
  An Italian manufacturer challenged a default judgment entered against it in a Florida court, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction under the Hague Convention because service documentation was not presented before the default judgment was entered. The court affirmed, holding
• McCLENON v. Zartemi
  710 So. 2d 737· Fla. 3d DCA· 1998-05-20 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion to set aside the default judgment because the defendant was entitled to proper notice of the default application, which she did not receive.
• Desia Collins v. Penske Truck Leasing
  668 So. 2d 343· Fla. 5th DCA· 1996-02-23 ·cited 5×
• Days v. Jannette G. Days
  655 So. 2d 1302· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-06-12 ·cited 5×
  Leonard Days appeals the denial of his motion to vacate a final judgment in a dissolution proceeding, claiming he received no notice of the remand hearing. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court erred by presuming notice reached Days at his correct address when it
• McGREGOR v. United States
  933 F.2d 156· 2d Cir.· 1991-05-15 ·cited 5×
  The court held that failure to serve the Attorney General within 120 days under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(j) is not excused by "good cause" absent government misconduct, and filing a second complaint after a Rule 4(j) dismissal does not toll the statute of limitations.
• First Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Cal. Pac. Life Ins. Co.
  876 F.2d 877· 11th Cir.· 1989-06-28 ·cited 5×
  The court held that summary judgment for the defendant was proper because the plaintiff failed to present admissible evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact, and the court did not err in denying the plaintiff's subsequent motions to set aside the judgment.
• Eitel v. McCOOL
  782 F.2d 1470· 9th Cir.· 1986-01-14 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a default judgment or in dismissing the action based on the parties' oral agreement to settle.
• United States v. Neal
  774 F.2d 1022· 10th Cir.· 1985-10-07 ·cited 5×
  A notice of appeal is not insufficient for misdesignating the appellate court if the intent to appeal is reasonably inferable and the appellee was not misled.
• Miami Steel Traders, Inc. v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc.
  401 So. 2d 1146· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-07-28 ·cited 5×
  Miami Steel Traders appealed the trial court's denial of its motion to vacate a default judgment. The court held that while a defendant may file a late answer to prevent default before a default hearing, this does not excuse failure to timely file an answer under the civil proced
• Taylor v. Wells
  265 So. 2d 402· Fla. 1st DCA· 1972-07-25 ·cited 5×
  A Florida appellate court affirmed a trial court's decision to set aside a default divorce judgment after the original plaintiff died, allowing the defendant to defend on the merits regarding property and alimony rights. The court recognized that while divorce actions normally te
• Avlon v. Greencha Holding Corp.
  232 F.2d 129· 2d Cir.· 1956-04-02 ·cited 5×
• United States ex rel. Robinson v. Bar Ass'n of Dist. of Columbia
  190 F.2d 664· D.C. Cir.· 1951-06-27 ·cited 5×
  The court denied the appellant's motion for relief pendente lite, finding it unwarranted and lacking legal basis, but granted the appellant's motion for an extension of time to file his brief.