Order | Filed: June 23, 2026
| Entered: June 23, 2026
Espinoza v. Casa Tua Hotel & Restaurant Company L.L.C.
Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other | Florida Southern
Order on Motion for Reconsideration
PAPERLESS ORDER granting 11 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, to Vacate Order of Dismissal, and to Reopen Case ("Motion").
Plaintiff's Motion seeks relief from the Order Dismissing Case, [ECF No. 9], on the grounds that "counsel inadvertently filed an unsigned version of the affidavit rather than the fully executed affidavit that had already been signed by Plaintiff on June 16, 2026." Mot. at 2. Rule 60(b)(1) permits a court, in its discretion, to vacate a prior order which was entered as a result of a party's "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). In the context of Rule 60(b)(1), "'excusable neglect' is understood to encompass situations in which the failure to comply with a filing deadline is attributable to negligence." Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 394 (1993). "The determination of what constitutes excusable neglect is generally an equitable one, taking into account the totality of the circumstances surrounding the party's omission." Sloss Indus. Corp. v. Eurisol, 488 F.3d 922, 934 (11th Cir. 2007). Relevant considerations include the Pioneer factors: "the danger of prejudice to the [opposing party], the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith." Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395.
While the Court does not make a habit of excusing attorney neglect, see Jacobs v. Hudson Real Est. Holdings, LLC, No. 20-80911, 2021 WL 705785, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 23, 2021), the record here satisfies the Pioneer factors. Specifically, Plaintiff's counsel does not appear to have acted intentionally or in bad faith. Accordingly, relief under Rule 60(b)(1) is warranted based on the totality of the circumstances. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion, [ECF No. 11], is GRANTED. The Order Dismissing Case, [ECF No. 9], is hereby VACATED and this case is REINSTATED. Plaintiff's counsel is further cautioned that moving forward, the Court will not tolerate non-compliance with this Court's deadlines, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida.
Further, in accordance with the Return of Service, [ECF No. 5], and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a), the July 1, 2026 deadline for Defendant to file a response or answer to Plaintiff's Complaint is REINSTATED. Defendant shall file a response or answer to Plaintiff's Complaint on or before July 1, 2026. This case is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pending Defendant's response or answer to Plaintiff's Complaint.
Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 6/23/2026. (twk)