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

• Butner v. Ingrid Neustadter
  324 F.2d 783· 9th Cir.· 1963-11-18 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by reinstating a default judgment after initially setting it aside, as there was doubt regarding inexcusable neglect and a possibility of a meritorious defense.
• Hubert Fischer & Angeles de Fischer v. Barnett Bank OF S. Fla., N.A.
  511 So. 2d 1087· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-09-01 ·cited 35×
  Defendants appealed the trial court's denial of their motion to vacate a default declaratory decree. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that the defendants failed to establish either excusable neglect for missing the deadline or due diligence in seeking relief afterwar
• Patterson v. Mintzes
  717 F.2d 284· 6th Cir.· 1983-09-07 ·cited 35×
  The court held that a district court's consideration of untimely objections to a magistrate's report, even without a formal extension, does not waive the right to appeal, and that summary judgment was improperly granted on the plaintiff's First Amendment and Eighth Amendment clai
• Davis v. Musler
  713 F.2d 907· 2d Cir.· 1983-07-18 ·cited 35×
  The court held that a default judgment awarding unliquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and punitive damages without a hearing was improper and must be vacated.
• Feliciano v. Reliant Tooling Co., Ltd.
  691 F.2d 653· 3d Cir.· 1982-10-26 ·cited 35×
  The court held that a default judgment against a foreign garnishee insurer should be opened when the insurer had a reasonable doubt about personal jurisdiction, possessed a facially meritorious defense, and caused no prejudice to the judgment creditor.
• Penson v. Terminal Transp. Co., Inc.
  634 F.2d 989· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-23 ·cited 35×
  A consent decree entered in a Rule 23(b)(2) class action does not bar an individual's suit if the notice provided to the class member did not adequately inform them of their right to opt out, as required by the decree.
• FOX v. Brewer
  620 F.2d 177· 8th Cir.· 1980-04-11 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the appeal was untimely filed and that even if treated as a Rule 60(b) motion, relief was not warranted due to lack of timely filing and insufficient grounds.
• Carter v. Whitman
  516 So. 2d 83· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-12-08 ·cited 34×
  The appellate court reversed an order denying a motion to vacate a default judgment. The court found that the corporate defendant's failure to timely respond to a complaint was due to excusable neglect, as the complaint was lost in transit and on the general counsel's desk. The c
• Wes Brandt v. Dolman
  421 So. 2d 689· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-11-03 ·cited 34×
  Brandt appeals from a non-final order denying his motion to set aside a default judgment. The court reversed, holding that Brandt satisfied all prerequisites for relief from default—excusable neglect, a meritorious defense, and due diligence—and thus the motion should have been g
• BAY Prods. Corp. v. Winters
  341 So. 2d 240· Fla. 3d DCA· 1976-12-23 ·cited 34×
  The appellate court affirmed the denial of a motion to vacate a default judgment, finding service valid, but reversed a partial final judgment due to insufficient well-pleaded facts to support the relief granted.
• Claffey v. Serafino
  338 So. 2d 270· Fla. 2d DCA· 1976-10-22 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a party seeking to set aside a default judgment must demonstrate both a legal excuse for non-compliance and a meritorious defense.
• Norene L. Davis v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
  532 F.2d 489· 5th Cir.· 1976-06-01 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the default judgment against the appellant but reversed the award for medical expenses due to insufficient evidence of reasonableness and anticipation.
• Gooch v. Skelly OIL Co.
  493 F.2d 366· 10th Cir.· 1974-03-25 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in finding excusable neglect, as the record did not support such a finding, and therefore the appeal must be dismissed for failure to file a timely notice of appeal.
• Universal Film Exchanges, Inc. v. Lust
  479 F.2d 573· 4th Cir.· 1973-06-11 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a client is bound by the "grossly negligent" acts or omissions of their attorney, and such negligence does not constitute excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1) to vacate a judgment.
• Sleek v. J. C. Penney Co., Inc.
  292 F.2d 256· 3d Cir.· 1961-06-27 ·cited 34×
  A motion for reargument filed within the appeal period of a Rule 60(b) denial, and granted by the court, tolls the time for appeal, making the subsequent denial of reargument appealable.
• Mullne v. Sea-Tech Constr., Inc.
  84 So. 3d 1247· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-04-18 ·cited 33×
  The court held that a default judgment imposing personal liability on a non-contracting spouse for breach of contract, when the complaint only sought foreclosure of a construction lien against their property interest, is void and must be vacated.
• Carter v. Lake Cnty.
  840 So. 2d 1153· Fla. 5th DCA· 2003-03-28 ·cited 33×
  Carter appeals the denial of his motion for attorney's fees in an eminent domain action. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed because, although the notice served was a voluntary dismissal triggering a 30-day deadline under rule 1.525, the trial court applied the wrong stan
• Charles v. Meadows
  817 F.2d 517· 9th Cir.· 1987-05-14 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the appellants' motion to vacate the default judgment was properly denied because their default was intentional and inexcusable, and the district court had subject matter and personal jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act due to the commercia
• United Artists Corp. & L.P.A.A. v. LA Cage AUX Folles, Inc.
  771 F.2d 1265· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-17 ·cited 33×
  The court held that dismissal was an excessive sanction for Danon's failure to supplement interrogatories, despite the conduct warranting some sanction.
• Hall v. Eleanore Florence Byington & Rinker Materials Corp.
  421 So. 2d 817· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-11-17 ·cited 33×
  Mary Hall appealed the trial court's order vacating a default judgment against her. The court reversed and remanded, holding that the defendant failed to properly establish excusable neglect for missing the answer deadline because the supporting motion was not truly sworn.
• Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Holmes
  352 So. 2d 1233· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-11-29 ·cited 33×
  Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company appeals the trial court's order allowing a plaintiff to join the personal representative of a deceased defendant's estate after the 90-day substitution period expired under Florida Civil Procedure Rule 1.260(a)(1). The court held that the
• Menier v. United States
  405 F.2d 245· 5th Cir.· 1968-12-05 ·cited 33×
• David M. Dresdner, M.D., P.A. v. The Charter OAK Fire Ins. Co.
  972 So. 2d 275· Fla. 2d DCA· 2008-01-18 ·cited 32×
  This case addresses whether a trial court may vacate and reenter an order to allow a party to perfect an appeal after missing the filing deadline due to lawyer error constituting excusable neglect. The Second District Court of Appeal held that a trial court lacks authority to use
• Nat'l Enters., Inc. v. Foodtech Hialeah, Inc.
  777 So. 2d 1191· Fla. 3d DCA· 2001-02-21 ·cited 32×
  National Enterprises appealed a dismissal for lack of prosecution, arguing that two good faith notices of hearing filed within one year before the dismissal motion constituted sufficient record activity under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e). The Third District Court of A
• In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure
  606 So. 2d 227· Fla.· 1992-09-24 ·cited 32×·via Excusable Neglect Standard
  The Florida Supreme Court approved proposed amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure submitted by the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure Committee. The amendments make substantive changes and stylistic revisions to numerous criminal procedure rules, effective Januar
• State v. Puckett OIL Co., Inc.
  577 So. 2d 988· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-04-03 ·cited 32×·via Excusable Neglect Standard
  The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation appeals a summary final order awarding attorney's fees and costs to Puckett Oil Company, arguing the hearing officer erred in entering summary judgment against it for filing a responsive pleading four days late. The court reverse
• Abdul Shah v. T.D. Hutto
  722 F.2d 1167· 4th Cir.· 1983-12-08 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the 1979 amendment to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) requires a motion for an extension of time to be filed within 30 days of the original deadline, and a bare notice of appeal is insufficient.
• Gross v. Stereo Component Sys., Inc.
  700 F.2d 120· 3d Cir.· 1983-02-18 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a default judgment should be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings because the defendant showed no prejudice to the plaintiff, a potentially meritorious defense, and no willful conduct leading to the default.
• United States v. Ward
  696 F.2d 1315· 11th Cir.· 1983-02-03 ·cited 32×
  The court held that Prows' appeal must be remanded for the district court to determine excusable neglect for his late filing, and that Ward's double jeopardy and due process claims lack merit.
• Chick KAM Choo v. Exxon Corp.
  699 F.2d 693· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-24 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b).
• Nat'l Indus., Inc. v. Republic Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
  677 F.2d 1258· 9th Cir.· 1982-05-10 ·cited 32×
  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment quieting title in National as to Philip Goldberg's interest in the ranch, but reversed as to Ruth Goldberg's interest, remanding for further proceedings. The court also affirmed the denial of Republic's mot
• Kiaer v. Friendship, Inc.
  376 So. 2d 919· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-11-13 ·cited 32×
  A yacht seller was defaulted in a breach of warranty action after failing to appear at trial, despite having filed a responsive pleading and appearing at prior hearings. The appellate court reversed, holding that the default judgment was improper because no notice of application
• United States v. Lucas
  597 F.2d 243· 10th Cir.· 1979-04-26 ·cited 32×
  A defendant who files a notice of appeal beyond the specified time but within the permissible extension period should have the opportunity to seek relief by showing excusable neglect.
• Allen v. Wright
  350 So. 2d 111· Fla. 1st DCA· 1977-09-19 ·cited 32×
  This interlocutory appeal concerns whether a trial court properly set aside a default judgment entered against a truck owner in a wrongful death action. The court reversed the trial court's order, holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate excusable neglect required to vaca
• In re Morrow v. Morrow
  502 F.2d 520· 5th Cir.· 1974-10-11 ·cited 32×
  The appeal must be dismissed because it was not timely filed within the period prescribed by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
• Calland v. United States
  323 F.2d 405· 7th Cir.· 1963-10-10 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a late petition for appeal, filed more than six months after the statutory period, requires a showing of plain reversible error, not just counsel's failure to act.
• Frank Gunther et ux. and Ethel and Oscar Heath v. E. I. DU Pont de Nemours & Co.
  255 F.2d 710· 4th Cir.· 1958-05-23 ·cited 32×
  The court dismissed the appeal because the plaintiffs failed to timely file the record and did not properly appeal the summary judgment.
• Barber v. Turberville
  218 F.2d 34· D.C. Cir.· 1954-08-02 ·cited 32×
  The court should affirm the judgment, holding that a defendant's inexcusable neglect in failing to appear constitutes a waiver of procedural rights, including the right to a jury trial.
• Lenoir v. Jones
  979 So. 2d 1129· Fla. 1st DCA· 2008-04-14 ·cited 31×
  Appellant Lenoir appeals dismissal of his civil action for failure to serve the defendant within 120 days of filing. The trial court dismissed sua sponte without notice or opportunity for Lenoir to show good cause. The court reversed, holding that Florida procedure requires notic
• Szucs v. Qualico Dev., Inc.
  893 So. 2d 708· Fla. 2d DCA· 2005-02-23 ·cited 31×
  Joe Szucs appeals a default judgment for damages in a shareholder dispute with Qualico Development, Inc. The court affirmed the denial of his motion to vacate the default but reversed the damages award, holding that unliquidated damages require a trial rather than summary judgmen
• In re S. Atl. Fin. Corp. v. S. Atl. Fin. Corp.
  767 F.2d 814· 11th Cir.· 1985-08-05 ·cited 31×
  The court held that an attorney's failure to ascertain if a proof of claim was filed, leading to a late filing, does not constitute excusable neglect, and a notice of appearance is insufficient to be considered an informal proof of claim.
• Farnese v. Bagnasco
  687 F.2d 761· 3d Cir.· 1982-08-31 ·cited 31×
  The court held that there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's refusal to vacate the default judgment.
• Amoco Overseas OIL Co. v. Compagnie Nationale Algerienne de Navigation ("C. N. A. N.") and T/S IN Amenas
  605 F.2d 648· 2d Cir.· 1979-07-19 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to reopen the default judgment, as the jurisdictional challenges were without merit and the motion was untimely or lacked sufficient grounds for relief.
• Chastain v. Kelley
  510 F.2d 1232· D.C. Cir.· 1975-04-02 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting an expungement order without a hearing on the merits, particularly when the government belatedly opposed the motion, raising factual questions about the necessity of expungement.
• Christoffel v. United States
  190 F.2d 585· D.C. Cir.· 1951-05-11 ·cited 31×
  The court denied motions to extend time to file the record on appeal, finding no excusable neglect, but retained discretion to consider substantial questions on appeal.
• Wallace v. United States
  142 F.2d 240· 2d Cir.· 1944-02-17 ·cited 31×
  A government attorney's consent to vacate a dismissal order is ineffective to waive the statute of limitations defense against the United States.
• In the Interest of A.N.D. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs.
  883 So. 2d 910· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-10-06 ·cited 30×
  A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights based on implied consent resulting from her failure to appear at an adjudicatory hearing due to severe sunburns. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court applied the wro
• Lloyd's Underwriter's AT London v. Ruby, Inc.
  801 So. 2d 138· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-11-21 ·cited 30×
  Lloyd's Underwriter's at London appeals a trial court's denial of its motion to set aside a default judgment. The court reversed, holding that Lloyd's established excusable neglect through a series of clerical errors and miscommunications involving its New York law firm and Londo
• BellSOUTH Advertising & Publ'g Corp. v. Sec. Bank, N.A.
  698 So. 2d 254· Fla.· 1997-08-21 ·cited 30×
  The Florida Supreme Court addressed whether a statute imposing liability on a garnishee for the full amount of the plaintiff's judgment applies to post-judgment garnishments. The Court held that the statute only applies to prejudgment garnishments, requiring notice and proof of d
• Schneiderman v. Cantor
  546 So. 2d 51· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-06-28 ·cited 30×
  Schneiderman was improperly served in New Jersey due to a defective return of service that failed to include required statutory timing information. The trial court entered default and final default judgments against him. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of