UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-22944-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

SARINA PAL, et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

1350 S. DIXIE, LLC, d/b/a/ 

The Residences at Thesis, et al.

Defendants.

____________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN CASE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Motion for Relief from the Court’s March 15, 

2023 Order or Motion to Reopen Case, ECF No. [31] (“Motion”), filed by Plaintiffs Sarina Pal 

and Jaya Williams (“Plaintiffs”). Defendant 1350 Dixie, LLC (“Defendant”) filed a Response in 

Opposition, ECF No. [33], to which Plaintiffs filed a Reply, ECF No. [41]. The Court has reviewed 

the Motion, the supporting and opposing submissions, the record in this case, the applicable law, 

and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied. 

Plaintiff filed this case on September 15, 2022. See ECF No. [1]. On January 13, 2023, 

Defendants 1350 Dixie, LLC and Nolan Reynolds International filed a Motion to Dismiss, ECF 

No. [15], as did Defendant Gables Residential Services, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), ECF 

No. [16]. Plaintiffs did not file a Response. Rather, on January 27, 2023, the day their Response 

was originally due, Plaintiffs moved for a 30-day extension of time. ECF No. [17]. The Court 

promptly granted that motion, extending Plaintiffs’ Response deadline to February 27, 2023. ECF 

No. [18]. On February 27, 2023, on the day their Response was due, Plaintiffs moved for a second 

extension of time. ECF No. [23]. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ second motion because it did not 

Case 1:22-cv-22944-BB Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2024 Page 1 of 6
Case No. 22-cv-22944-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

2

comply with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3)’s conferral requirement. ECF No. [24]. The Court accordingly 

found “Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to Defendants’ Motions is ‘sufficient cause for granting the 

motion[s] by default.’” ECF No. [25] at 1-2 (“Order”) (quoting S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(c)(1)). 

Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion on March 14, 2024. Plaintiffs seek relief from this 

Court’s Order, ECF No. [25], pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Plaintiffs contend 

this case should be reopened because their failure to respond to Defendants’ motions to dismiss 

was due to excusable neglect. For support, Plaintiffs explain their counsel was “unaware of the 

denial of the Second Motion for Extension of Time” because he “was dealing with serious health 

matters[.]” ECF No. [31] at 3. Plaintiffs’ also note counsel “endured several grave and dire 

personal matters, including matters that pertained to the health, safety and well-being of his 

teenage son and a period in which the undersigned was displaced and without housing for roughly 

sixty (60) days[.]” Id. Plaintiffs argue their failure to timely respond to Defendants’ motions to 

dismiss therefore constitutes excusable neglect. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that this case be 

reopened, and the Court grant leave for Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.1

Defendant responds that Plaintiffs’ Motion is untimely and should be denied. Defendant 

contends Plaintiffs’ Motion is untimely because it was not filed within a reasonable time, Plaintiffs 

fail to show their failure to respond was due to excusable neglect, and permitting leave to file an 

amended complaint would be futile. Defendant also argues no other reasons support reopening this 

case, and that it would be prejudiced by the relief. Plaintiff replies that Defendants raises a series 

of irrelevant issues, and this case should be reopened. 

Rule 60(b) provides “[o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal 

representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, 

1 Plaintiffs also argue other reasons support this relief, namely, the lack of prejudice to 

Defendants.

Case 1:22-cv-22944-BB Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2024 Page 2 of 6
Case No. 22-cv-22944-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

3

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect ... or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 60(b). “A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time—and for 

[excusable neglect] ... no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of 

the proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c). “Excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1) generally 

encompasses situations where a party fails to comply with a filing deadline due to negligence.” 

Townsend v. Veterans Affairs Med. Ctr., 522 Fed. App’x 494, 496 (11th Cir. 2013) (internal 

quotation omitted)). To demonstrate entitlement to relief due to excusable neglect, the moving 

party must show “(1) it had a meritorious defense that might have affected the outcome; (2) 

granting the motion would not result in prejudice to the non-defaulting party; and (3) a good reason 

existed for failing to reply.” Branch Banking & Trust v. Maxwell, 512 F. App’x 1010, 1012 (11th 

Cir. 2013) (quoting In re Worldwide Web Sys. Inc., 328 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2003)). Such 

relief is extraordinary, and cases should not be lightly reopened. Cf. Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp., 

722 F.2d 677, 679-80 (11th Cir. 1984) (“The desirability for order and predictability in the judicial 

process speaks for caution in the reopening of judgments.”). 

Plaintiffs’ Motion is untimely. As noted, Plaintiffs filed this Motion on March 14, 2024—

one day shy of a full year after the Court dismissed this case on March 15, 2023. See ECF No. 

[25]. Plaintiff is correct that the Motion is not precluded by Rule 60, as Rule 60(c) provides a 

motion brought under this rule must be filed “no more than a year after the entry of the judgment 

or order or the date of the proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c). However, Rule 60(c) requires that 

any such motion “must be made within a reasonable time.” Id. (emphasis added). Plaintiffs have 

not filed this Motion within a reasonable time. Defendant accurately observes the Eleventh Circuit 

has found the “longer a defendant ... delays in responding to a complaint, the more compelling 

the reason it must provide for its inaction when it seeks to set aside a default judgment.” Sloss 

Case 1:22-cv-22944-BB Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2024 Page 3 of 6
Case No. 22-cv-22944-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

4

Indus. Corp. v. Eurisol, 488 F.3d 922, 935 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Worldwide Web Systems, 328 

F.3d at 1297-98 (denying a Rule 60(b) motion after the defendants waited two months to file their 

motion because the defendants failed to provide a “good reason[ ] for this delay”) (internal 

quotation omitted)). 

Plaintiffs fail to provide a compelling—or even persuasive—reason here. As discussed, 

Plaintiffs contend their counsel was unaware this case was dismissed due to health issues and

explain counsel later “endured several grave and dire personal matters[.]” ECF No. [31] at 3. 

However, as Defendant points out, Plaintiffs’ Motion fails to persuasively explain why Plaintiffs’

counsel was unable to learn this case was dismissed for nearly a year, or why counsel was unable 

to work during this entire period. More importantly, the record reflects Plaintiffs did work during 

this period. On September 19, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the same case against Defendants. See Sarina 

Pal and Jaya Williams v. 1350 S. Dixie, LLC and Gables Residential Services, Inc., Case No. 1:23-

cv-23577-CMA (“Second Lawsuit”).

2 Plaintiffs only filed the instant Motion after Chief Judge 

Altonaga dismissed the Second Lawsuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied both of 

Plaintiffs’ Rule 60 motions seeking to reopen the case. See id., ECF Nos. [4], [7], [9]. The record 

thus makes clear Plaintiffs fail to provide any “good reason” for their approximately year-long 

delay in filing the instant Motion. Worldwide Web Systems, 328 F.3d at 1297-98.

Moreover, the Court agrees that Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate excusable neglect justifying 

Rule 60 relief. The Eleventh Circuit instructs “an attorney’s negligent failure to respond to a 

motion does not constitute excusable neglect, even if that attorney is preoccupied with other 

litigation.” Solaroll Shade & Shutter Corp. v. Bio-Energy Sys., 803 F.2d 1130, 1132 (11th Cir. 

1986); see also Florida Physicians Ins. Co. v. Ehlers, 8 F.3d 780, 784 (11th Cir. 1993) (per curiam)

2 The Court previously granted Defendant’s motion to take judicial notice of that case. See ECF 

No. [4]. 

Case 1:22-cv-22944-BB Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2024 Page 4 of 6
Case No. 22-cv-22944-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

5

(“failure to establish minimum procedural safeguards for determining that action in response to a 

summons and complaint is being taken does not constitute default through excusable neglect.”)

(quoting Gibbs v. Air Canada, 810 F.2d 1529, 1537 (11th Cir. 1987)). Further, Plaintiff is incorrect 

that reopening this case will not prejudice Defendants. As Defendant points out, reopening this 

case will force Defendants to litigate this case anew. Taking into consideration the near-identical 

Second Lawsuit, granting this Motion would effectively require Defendants to do so for a third 

time.3

Finally, Plaintiffs have not shown they “had a meritorious defense that might have affected 

the outcome[.]” Maxwell, 512 F. App’x 1010, 1012 (11th Cir. 2013). As noted, the Second Lawsuit 

was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Here, Plaintiffs’ proffered Amended 

Complaint alleges this court has diversity jurisdiction because upon “information and belief, 

[Defendant’s] sole member is 1350 S. Dixie Mezz Borrower, LLC.” ECF No. [30] ¶ 4. As 

Defendant observes, however, this Court has explicitly found “it is never appropriate to plead 

jurisdictional allegations upon information and belief[.]” Admiral Ins. Co. v. VPrart, LLC, Case 

No. 21-cv-21312-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes, 2021 WL 1318223, at *1 n.1 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2021) 

(emphasis in original); see also Dockery v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest, Case No. 19-21904-

Civ, 2019 WL 8895231, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 24, 2019) (pleading jurisdiction based “upon 

information and belief ... does not qualify as a ‘fact’ establishing jurisdiction.... A party’s 

citizenship must be asserted without qualification.”). The Court therefore concludes Plaintiffs’ 

Motion is both untimely and fails to show excusable neglect that would justify reopening this case. 

3 Even assuming Defendants were not prejudiced, the Eleventh Circuit has found “a lack of 

prejudice is not enough, by itself, to warrant relief[.]” SEC v. Simmons, 241 Fed. App’x 660, 664. This 

argument thus fails to provide a basis for Rule 60 relief regardless of whether it is evaluated in the context 

of “excusable neglect” or “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (6). 

Case 1:22-cv-22944-BB Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2024 Page 5 of 6
Case No. 22-cv-22944-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

6

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion, ECF No. [31], is DENIED.

2. This case shall remain CLOSED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on July 3, 2024.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: 

Counsel of Record

Case 1:22-cv-22944-BB Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2024 Page 6 of 6