Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 60(B)(1)

103 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Alamo Chem. Transp. Co. v. M/V Overseas Valdes
  726 F.2d 1073· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that reliance on the clerk of court to provide notice of judgment entry does not constitute excusable neglect or a basis for relief from the time limitations for filing an appeal.
• Williams v. The Five Platters, Inc.
  510 F.2d 963· C.C.P.A.· 1975-02-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate its earlier decision granting summary judgment.
• Silber v. Mabon
  957 F.2d 697· 9th Cir.· 1992-02-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the notice procedures used in the securities class action settlement were constitutionally deficient because they failed to offer reimbursement to brokerage houses for forwarding costs, thus not constituting the 'best notice practicable under the circumstances
• Wesco Prods. Co. & Donald Horwitz v. Alloy Auto. Co.
  880 F.2d 981· 7th Cir.· 1989-07-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that affirmatively misleading a party through the judicial process can constitute extraordinary circumstances justifying relief under Rule 60(b)(6), especially when it creates a substantial danger of injustice.
• Molloy v. Wilson
  878 F.2d 313· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the one-year limitation period of Rule 60(b)(1) does not bar a motion to vacate when the party did not receive notice of the dismissal order, allowing for consideration under Rule 60(b)(6).
• In re M/V Peacock v. M/V Peacock
  809 F.2d 1403· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the appellees' misrepresentations prevented her from fully and fairly presenting her case, thus not meeting the standard for relief under Rule 60(b)(3).
• Lender v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., Inc.
  519 F. Supp. 2d 1217· M.D. Fla.· 2007-09-14 ·cited 4×
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant the plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment, reopening the case against Unum Life Insurance Company.
• Wagstaff-El v. Carlton Press Co.
  913 F.2d 56· 2d Cir.· 1990-09-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that vacating a default judgment was not an abuse of discretion when the underlying claims lacked any valid basis, despite the default being willful.
• DKG Commc'ns, LLC v. RLM Underground, LLC
  2024 WL 3520794· M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-06 ·cited 3×
  A motion for reconsideration is not the proper procedural vehicle for challenging a non-final discovery order, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate diligence or meet the criteria for reconsideration.
• Gegenheimer v. Raoul A. "Skip" Galan, Jr.
  920 F.2d 307· 5th Cir.· 1991-01-09 ·cited 2×
  A successor clerk of court, sued in his official capacity, is liable for an intentional tort committed by his predecessor, as the liability attaches to the office, not the individual.
• Mishael Maduakolam v. Columbia Univ.
  866 F.2d 53· 2d Cir.· 1989-01-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion to reopen his case was untimely under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1), but that attorney's fees under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 were not warranted given the circumstances.
• H.R. Ambrose Tessmer v. Walker
  833 F.2d 925· 11th Cir.· 1987-12-07 ·cited 2×
  The district court should have vacated and reentered its judgment to restart the period for filing a notice of appeal because the clerk's misinformation, combined with counsel's diligent inquiries and prompt filing of a Rule 60(b) motion, constituted exceptional circumstances jus
• Goldenberg v. Warden Heuett
  S.D. Fla.· 2026-02-12
  The court denied the motion for reconsideration because the petitioner failed to present new evidence or demonstrate manifest error of law or fact, and the petitioner's arguments regarding futility and post-filing exhaustion were unpersuasive.
• Sheets v. Woelk
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-20
  The court held that a pro se plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) should be denied when the dismissal resulted from his intentional actions and lack of diligence, not excusable neglect or extraordinary circumstances.
• Sheets v. Gorman
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-20
  The court held that a pro se plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and (6) should be denied because his failure to pay the filing fee or seek in forma pauperis status was not due to excusable neglect or extraordinary circumstan
• Fast Response Marine Towing & Salvage, LLC v. M/V Bad Habits
  S.D. Fla.· 2026-01-11
  The court granted the motion to set aside the default final judgment because the salvage award was excessively inflated and inequitable, constituting an extraordinary circumstance justifying relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
• Saint Hubert v. 1754 Props. LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-09
  The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion, extending the time to file a notice of appeal but denying the request to vacate the final judgment.
• Lopez v. Garcia
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-02
  The court held that a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(1) cannot be used to relitigate old matters or raise new arguments that could have been previously presented.
• Honore v. United States Post Off.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-30
  A party is accountable for their attorney's actions, and simple attorney negligence or oversight, even if resulting in missed deadlines and dismissal, does not constitute excusable neglect or extraordinary circumstances warranting relief under Rule 60(b).
• Barney v. Goldoro Developments, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-05-21
  The court held that it committed legal error in awarding summary judgment on FLSA and FMWA claims to an exempt employee, but not on breach of contract claims for vacation pay. The court also erred in entering judgment against an individual defendant not found liable on those clai
• Jean-Baptiste v. City of Miami
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-03-28
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion to reconsider a prior order striking portions of her affidavits, finding that attorney inadvertence did not constitute excusable neglect under Rule 60(b).
• Hacienda Carballo, LLC v. Colony Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-24
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion to reconsider a prior order denying the reopening of expert discovery.
• Alli v. RD Am., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-23
  A district court's order remanding a case to state court based on a procedural defect in removal is not reviewable, even if the defendant seeks reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(1) for excusable neglect.
• AHR Fam., LLC v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-21
  The court held that a party cannot use the catch-all provision of Rule 60(b)(6) for attorney error, and Florida law favors the finality of settlements, thus denying the motion to vacate the dismissal and settlement.
• Cooley v. Schwartz
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-11-19
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment was denied because the stated reason for delay (hurricanes) was insufficient and did not constitute excusable neglect or extraordinary circumstances.
• Johnson v. Sparton DeLeon Springs, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-25
  The court held that the plaintiff's counsel's failure to comply with court orders constituted excusable neglect, warranting the setting aside of the dismissal order.
• Zarbo v. Tractor Supply Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-23
  The Court granted Plaintiff's motion to reopen the case, finding excusable neglect for her failure to comply with a prior order.
• Diodato v. Lucky
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-05-28
  The court held that it cannot review its own remand order for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, even if based on excusable neglect.
• Williams v. United States
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-02-02
  The court held that a Rule 60(b)(6) motion cannot be used for reasons covered by Rule 60(b)(1), and the motion was untimely.
• Bright v. City of Tampa
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-02-02
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion to vacate prior orders or amend his complaint was denied because he failed to establish excusable neglect or newly discovered evidence, and any amendment would be futile due to undue delay and repeated pleading deficiencies.
• Garcia v. Stillman
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-01-12
  The court granted plaintiffs' motion for an indicative ruling, stating it would clarify its prior summary judgment order to explicitly confirm that the In-Office Restrictions violated the First Amendment's overbreadth doctrine.
• Biscayne Bay Waterkeeper, Inc. v. K.L. Brito Corp.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-11-10
  The court vacated the clerk's entry of default against the defendant, finding excusable neglect.
• Bright v. Argos Cement USA, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-09-13
  The court held that the plaintiff's illness and incarceration constituted excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1), warranting vacating the prior dismissal and allowing the plaintiff to file a second amended complaint.
• Bainbridge v. Director of the Florida Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco
  11th Cir.· 2023-08-04
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the Division's motion to modify the injunction, holding that the motion was not a clerical correction under Rule 60(a) and was untimely under Rule 60(b)(1), and the injunction was not void under Rule 60(b)(4).
• Cherdak v. Cottone
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-07-14
  The court denied the plaintiff's motions for relief from judgment and sanctions, finding no newly discovered evidence, fraud on the court, or manifest error of law, and that the plaintiff improperly raised Rule 11 sanctions.
• Gruber v. Fed. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-11-08
  The court held that plaintiffs' bare assertion of miscalculating a deadline does not constitute excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1) to vacate an unopposed summary judgment.
• Bent v. Wilson
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-10-31
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, finding that the plaintiff's violations of a prior court order were not due to mistake or excusable neglect.
• Walker v. United States
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-05-15
  The court held that a motion to reopen a case under Rule 60(b) was untimely and lacked the extraordinary circumstances required for relief.
• Bhogte v. Phoenix Mgmt. Servs., Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-05-09
  The court held that a calendaring error constituted excusable neglect, allowing the case to be reopened.
• Andersen v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-06-07
  The court denied the defendant's motion for relief from a prior order and for reconsideration, finding no basis for vacating the dismissal or reconsidering the prior ruling.
• Mattos v. Nat'l W. Life Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-05-21
  The court held that a party's misunderstanding of procedural rules, even if leading to an untimely challenge, does not constitute excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1). Furthermore, broad delegation provisions clearly indicate intent to arbitrate gateway issues like arbitrability
• Hayward v. Secretary, DOC (Lee County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-02-03
  A defendant's awareness of a sentencing range does not transform an open plea into a plea agreement, and therefore does not entitle them to relief under Rule 60(b).
• Ryan v. Allstate Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-12-14
  The court held that the plaintiffs' motion to vacate the dismissal order is denied because their claimed clerical mistake does not qualify for relief under Rule 60(a), and their claims of excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1) fail due to significant delay, prejudice to the defend
• Moreiras v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-08-18
  A party's repeated failure to meet court deadlines, including a failure to calendar a response deadline and a subsequent three-month delay in seeking relief, does not constitute excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1).
• Cohen v. Burlington, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-03-03
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion to amend the default judgment and granted in part and denied in part the movants' motion for sanctions.
• Sporea v. Regions Bank N.A.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-02-24
  The Court denied Appellant's motion for relief from the dismissal order, finding no mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Toups
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-10-08
  The court held that a defendant's motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) was denied because the defendant failed to demonstrate excusable neglect, diligence, or a meritorious defense, and attorney negligence does not constitute grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1) or
• Adams v. Fid. & Cas. Co.
  125 F.R.D. 435· S.D. Fla.· 1993-03-03
  A subsequent change in law via legislation does not justify relief from a final judgment where rights have vested.
• Lech v. ST. Luke's Samaritan Hosp.
  921 F.2d 714· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-07
  The denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration was not an abuse of discretion because the plaintiff repeatedly failed to comply with court orders regarding expert witnesses, leading to the forfeiture of her expert testimony and the inability to establish a case.
• Fine v. Bellefonte Underwriters Ins. Co.
  758 F.2d 50· 2d Cir.· 1985-03-20
  The court held that a subsequent panel cannot review or overturn a prior panel's decision, and the district court correctly applied the law of the case doctrine.