ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS S. TRAVELER, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court reversed a lower court's denial of a motion to set aside a default judgment. The court found that the defendant's failure to respond to the complaint constituted excusable neglect, allowing the case to proceed on its merits.
Yes, the court held that the circumstances constituted excusable neglect. Because Royal Caribbean also presented a meritorious defense and acted with due diligence upon learning of the default, the default judgment should be set aside.
[1] Mishandling or misaddressing of forwarded complaint papers by an indemnitor constitutes excusable neglect.
[2] A defendant may be granted relief from a default judgment if excusable neglect is shown, a meritorious defense exists, and the defendant acted with due diligence upon lea…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Regardless of whether Royal Caribbean’s indemnitor did not receive the forwarded complaint because it was misaddressed or whether the indemnitor did, in fact, receive the forwarded complaint but mishandled it, we find that either scenario constitutes excusable neglect.”
Establishes the court's finding of excusable neglect based on the facts presented.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoyal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. (Royal Caribbean) failed to respond to a complaint, resulting in a default judgment against it. Royal Caribbean moved to…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Meritorious Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. [Royal Caribbean], appeals from an order denying its motion to set aside a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Thomas S. Traveler. We reverse.
Regardless of whether Royal Caribbean’s indemnitor did not receive the forwarded complaint because it was misaddressed or whether the indemnitor did, in fact, receive the forwarded complaint but mishandled it, we find that either scenario constitutes excusable neglect. See Venero v. Balbuena, 652 So. 2d 1271, 1272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(holding that insured who forwarded complaint to insurer that either misfiled or lost complaint had shown excusable neglect); Electric Eng’g Co. v. General Elec. Can., Inc., 610 So. 2d 51, 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)(holding that excusable neglect was shown where registered agent unknowingly forwarded complaint to defendant’s former address); Hialeah, Inc. v. Adams, 566 So. 2d 350, 351 (Fla. 3d DCA)(holding that mishandling or misfiling of suit papers constitutes excusable neglect), review denied, 576 So. 2d 284 (Fla.1990); Carter, Hawley, Hale Stores, Inc. v. Whitman, 516 So. 2d 83, 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)(holding that excusable neglect was shown where complaint was forwarded to company’s national headquarters and became “lost” in a pile of unrelated documents on the general counsel’s desk).
Because the record reflects that Royal Caribbean presented a meritorious defense and that it acted -with due diligence upon learning of the default, we follow the Florida Supreme Court’s established policy of providing relief from defaults and allowing causes to proceed on the merits. North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, 143 So. 2d 849, 853 (Fla.1962)(holding that if there is any reasonable doubt in the matter of vacating a default, it should be resolved in favor of granting the application and allowing a trial upon the merits of the case). Accordingly, we reverse the order under review, vacate the default judgment, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roney Plaza Assocs., Ltd. v. Henry, 848 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…tion for the trial court to refuse to set aside the default, and we reverse the order denying Roney’s motion to vacate judgment and default. See North Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So. 2d 849 (Fla.1962); Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Traveler, 699 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Electric Engineering Co., Inc. v. General Elec. Can., Inc., 610 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Reversed.…
-
Clemente Almeida and Juana Almeida v. FMC Corp., 740 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…ls v. United States, 164 F.R.D. 422 (N.D.W.Va.1996). . The defendants graciously conceded at oral argument before this court that they did not suffer any prejudice from the violation of Rule 1.070®. . See Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Traveler, 699 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Hanft v. Church, 671 So. 2d 249, 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Bellomio v. Malinski, 624 So. 2d 369, 370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). . It now reads: "If service of the initial process ,and initial pleading is not made upon a defendant within…
Authorities Cited
- N. Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1962)
- Carter v. Whitman, 516 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Hialeah, Inc. v. Adams, 566 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Venero v. Balbuena, 652 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Baron Dorsey v. State, 652 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Elec. Eng'g Co., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Canada, Inc., 610 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)