Neyman Ida Rojas v. Best Taxi Service Corporation

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed September 3, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-0989 Lower Tribunal No. 23-11344-CA-01 ________________

Neyman Ida Rojas, Appellant,

vs.

Best Taxi Service Corporation, et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David Craig Miller, Judge.

Chad Barr Law, and Chad A. Barr (Altamonte Springs), for appellant.

Michael S. Kaufman, for appellees.

Before LINDSEY, GORDO, and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Neyman Ida Rojas (Plaintiff below) appeals a non-final order

denying his Motion to Vacate a Dismissal for lack of service after notice. Rojas requests reversal based on excusable neglect. The trial court

denied Rojas relief without an evidentiary hearing. This was error.

“Where a motion under rule 1.540(b) sets forth ‘a colorable entitlement

to relief,’ the trial court should conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine

whether such relief should be granted.” Barton Protective Servs. v. Redmon,

387 So. 3d 353, 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (quoting Cottrell v. Taylor, Bean &

Whitaker Mortg. Corp., 198 So. 3d 688, 691 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)). “A motion

for relief from judgment should not be summarily denied without an

evidentiary hearing . . . .” Id. (quoting Schleger v. Stebelsky, 957 So. 2d 71,

73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)). “Where such a claim is raised and contested, the

trial court abuses its discretion in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on

the motion.” Id. at 356 (citing Oshana v. Lopiano, 314 So. 3d 311, 312 (Fla.

3d DCA 2020)). “Excusable neglect must be proven by sworn statements or

affidavits.” Noel v. James B. Nutter & Co., 232 So. 3d 1112, 1116 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2017) (quoting Elliott v. Aurora Loan Servs. LLC, 31 So. 3d 304, 307

(Fla. 4th DCA 2010)).

Based on the record before us, we reverse and remand for an

evidentiary hearing.

Reversed and remanded.