[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-14088

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

JOSE LUIS VERA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MARKET WOOD LLC, 

ADRIANA PICCOLI, 

RICARDO RUBIN, 

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

USCA11 Case: 22-14088 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 05/23/2023 Page: 1 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 22-14088

D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-23837-FAM

____________________

Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jose Luis Vera appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his complaint for failure to comply with a trial order and 

the district court’s order denying his motion to reopen the case. 

After careful review, we affirm. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Vera worked for Market Wood, LLC, Adriana Piccoli, and 

Ricardo Rubin (collectively, “Defendants”) as a non-exempt sales 

associate. Throughout his employment for Defendants, Vera 

worked an average of 46.5 hours per week but was only paid for 43 

hours per week. Vera regularly complained about this underpayment, and Defendants eventually demoted Vera from a sales associate to custodial work, which precluded him from earning commissions and reduced his compensation. On September 27, 2021, 

Vera filed a complaint against Defendants in state court, alleging 

wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act 

(“FLSA”) (Counts I, II, and III), retaliation under the FLSA (Count 

IV), breach of contract (Count V), quantum meruit (Count VI), and 

unjust enrichment (Count VI) against Defendants. On November 

1, 2021, Defendants removed the case to federal court in the Southern District of Florida. 

USCA11 Case: 22-14088 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 05/23/2023 Page: 2 of 6
22-14088 Opinion of the Court 3

Defendants moved to dismiss as to Counts V, VI, and VII on 

November 1, 2021, arguing that Vera did not allege the elements 

necessary to state a claim for breach of contract, quantum meruit, 

and unjust enrichment and that Counts V, VI, and VII did not state 

a claim against the individual defendants Piccoli and Rubin. On 

February 13, 2022, the district court granted Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss. The litigation continued as to Counts I, II, III, and IV. 

Pursuant to the district court’s order granting the parties’ 

joint motion for extension, the deadline for Vera to file witness and 

exhibit lists was on November 16, 2022. Defendants’ witness and 

exhibit lists were due on November 18, 2022, and the parties’ pretrial stipulation was due on November 22, 2022. Due to the failure 

of both parties to comply with all these deadlines, the district court 

entered an order dismissing the case on November 28, 2022. The 

district court concluded that the parties had “either settled without 

notifying the Court or abandoned their claims and defenses.” That 

same day, Vera moved to reopen the case, explaining that Vera had 

accepted an offer of judgment in the amount of $9,000 against Defendants on November 16, 2022, and requesting that the district 

court reopen the case and enter judgment against Defendants. 

Vera also stated that the failure to comply with the scheduling order and to notify the court of the resolution was excusable neglect 

in part because Vera’s counsel “was out of town for the 

USCA11 Case: 22-14088 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 05/23/2023 Page: 3 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 22-14088

Thanksgiving holiday break.” On December 6, 2022, the district 

court denied Vera’s motion to reopen the case.1

This timely appeal followed. Vera’s notice of appeal stated 

that he was appealing “the Court’s Order Dismissing Plaintiff’s 

Complaint and Final Order of Dismissal issued November 28, 2022 

and the Court’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen the 

case entered December 6, 2022.” Vera’s notice of appeal to this 

Court did not mention or attach the district court’s February 3, 

2022 order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to 

state a claim. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a district court’s dismissal of a case for failure to 

comply with court orders for abuse of discretion. Foudy v. Indian 

River Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 845 F.3d 1117, 1122 (11th Cir. 2017).

III. ANALYSIS

Vera argues that the district court erred in dismissing his 

case against Defendants and in denying his subsequent motion to 

reopen. “A district court has inherent authority to manage its own 

docket ‘so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of 

cases.’” Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscape Serv. 

Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Chambers v. 

NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991)). This authority permits a 

1 Also on December 6, 2022, Vera refiled his complaint, and it is pending before 

a judge in the Southern District of Florida. See Vera v. Market Wood LLC, et al., 

No. 1:23-cv-20285 (S.D. Fla. filed Jan. 25, 2023).

USCA11 Case: 22-14088 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 05/23/2023 Page: 4 of 6
22-14088 Opinion of the Court 5

district court to dismiss a claim if the plaintiff fails to comply with 

a court order. Id.; accord Smith v. Psychiatric Sols., Inc., 750 F.3d

1253, 1262 (11th Cir. 2014). In general, a dismissal without prejudice is not considered an abuse of discretion because the plaintiff 

may still refile. See Dynes v. Army Air Force Exch. Serv., 720 F.2d 1495, 

1499 (11th Cir. 1983). 

Given Vera’s failure to meet multiple court deadlines, his 

failure to notify the district court in any way of a pending resolution of the case, and the fact that he has already refiled his complaint, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing his claims.2

IV. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Vera’s claims and its order denying his motion to reopen.

2 Vera also requests review of the February 3, 2022, order dismissing portions 

of his complaint, even though he did not reference that order in his notice of 

appeal. “The timely filing of a notice of appeal is a mandatory prerequisite to 

the exercise of appellate jurisdiction.” See United States v. Ward, 696 F.2d 1315, 

1317 (11th Cir. 1983). “Although we generally construe a notice of appeal liberally, we will not expand it to include judgments and orders not specified 

unless the overriding intent to appeal these orders is readily apparent on the 

face of the notice.” Osterneck v. E.T. Barwick Indus., Inc., 825 F.2d 1521, 1529 

(11th Cir. 1987). And “where some portions of a judgment and some orders 

are expressly made part of the appeal, we must infer that the appellant did not 

intend to appeal other unmentioned orders or judgments.” Id. Because Vera 

did not mention in his notice of appeal that he was appealing the district 

court’s February 3 dismissal order, nor attach that order to the notice of appeal, we lack jurisdiction to review that order.

USCA11 Case: 22-14088 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 05/23/2023 Page: 5 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 22-14088

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 22-14088 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 05/23/2023 Page: 6 of 6