JANE DOE, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED
v.
CHARLES WILLIAM FIGEL
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.
A motion to vacate filed under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) does not extend the time to file a notice of appeal from the underlying judgment, but an appeal from the order denying such a motion is reviewable if timely filed.
[1] A motion to vacate a judgment filed under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) does not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal from the underlying judgment.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“The rule 1.540(b) motion did not extend the time to file a notice of appeal.”
Citation to Stucky v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 389 So. 3d 555, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024), establishing that motions to vacate do not toll the appeal deadline.
Jane Doe failed to appear at a case management conference, resulting in dismissal of her underlying action on February 9, 2024. She filed a motion 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 Relief From Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 6D2024-1539 Lower Tribunal No. 2018-CA-12080-O _____________________________
JANE DOE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Appellant, v. CHARLES WILLIAM FIGEL, Appellee. _____________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Heather Pinder Rodriguez, Judge.
September 12, 2025
WOZNIAK, J.
Jane Doe, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, appeals the Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Writ and Closing Case Based on Failure to Attend Case Management Conference. The order appealed from followed an order entered February 9, 2024, dismissing Doe’s underlying action for her failure to appear at a case management conference. To the extent that Doe makes arguments that the February 9, 2024, final order dismissing her underlying action was improperly entered, this Court does not have
2
jurisdiction because Doe’s notice of appeal was filed July 12, 2024, and her motion to vacate the order of dismissal did not extend the time to file a notice of appeal. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(h) (providing a list of motions that toll the time for filing a notice of appeal, which does not include a motion to vacate filed under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)); see also Stucky v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 389 So. 3d 555, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024) (“The rule 1.540(b) motion did not extend the time to file a notice of appeal.”). However, this Court does have jurisdiction with respect to Doe’s appeal from the order denying her motion to vacate entered June 12, 2024, because her notice of appeal was filed within 30 days of that order. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(5) (“Orders entered on an authorized and timely motion for relief from judgment are reviewable by the method prescribed by this rule.”). Finding no merit in Doe’s arguments directed at this order, we affirm. DISMISSED in part; AFFIRMED in part. TRAVER, C.J., and STARGEL, J., concur.
Paul S. Rothstein, of Paul S. Rothstein, P.A., Gainesville, for Appellant.
No Appearance for Appellee.