Alejandro Videla v. Hitomi Ogino

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed August 13, 2026.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-2494

Lower Tribunal No. 19-3921-FC-04

________________

Alejandro Videla,

Appellant,

vs.

Hitomi Ogino,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Denise Martinez-Scanziani, Judge.

Alejandro Videla, in proper person.

No appearance, for appellee.

Before SCALES, C.J., and LINDSEY and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Hess v. Hess, 290 So. 3d 512, 518 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)

(“Rule 12.540(b) allows a trial court to relieve a party from a final judgment on grounds of newly discovered evidence, which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial or rehearing.”); Shlimbaum v. Shlimbaum, 394 So. 3d 1157, 1161 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024) (“[M]otions filed under rule 12.540(b) are governed by the body of law applicable to rule 1.540(b).” (quotation omitted)); Brooks v. Brooks, 340 So. 3d 543, 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“[T]his Court generally reviews an order denying a rule 1.540[(b)] motion for abuse of discretion . . . .”); Milgen Dev., Inc. v. Goodman, 302 So. 2d 491, 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (“[T]he motion was properly denied because the letter would have no material difference in the outcome of the case. . . . [I]nasmuch as it does not appear that the evidence is such as will probably change the result if a new trial is granted, denial of the motion was correct.”).