Jane Doe, on Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly Situated v. Charles William Figel
This text of Jane Doe, on Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly Situated v. Charles William Figel (Jane Doe, on Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly Situated v. Charles William Figel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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 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.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Jane Doe, on Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly Situated v. Charles William Figel, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jane-doe-on-behalf-of-herself-and-others-similarly-situated-v-charles-fladistctapp-2025.