green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
57.9 score
G Cite
cited 16× by 16 distinct cases, 2020–2025 ·
…when . . . additional evidence would be truly unnecessary to a fully informed determination of damages.
at p. 746
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2020–2026 ·
…a defaulting party must show that: (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 to the complaint.
at p. 743
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2019 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2019
2022
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 45 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Cushing v. Tomoka Medical Lab, Inc.
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
this circuit recognizes that an attorney's failure to understand or review clear law categorically cannot constitute excusable neglect.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
William Ramirez v. TD Dans Corp. and Sergio Dans
The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has stated that to establish grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1) “a defaulting party must show that: (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 to the complaint.” Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int'l Ltd., 686 F. App'x 737, 743 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Worldwide Web Sys., Inc., 328 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2003)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Progressive Express Insurance Company v. Enrique Augusto Urdaneta, Joseph Reed Ubele, and The Minato Group, LLC
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that to establish grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1) “a defaulting party must show that: (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 to the complaint.” Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int'l Ltd., 686 F. App'x 737, 743 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Worldwide Web Sys., Inc., 328 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2003)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Powell v. The School Board of Volusia County, Florida
P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). “[E]xcusable neglect encompasses situations of negligence within the . . . party’s control.” Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 744 (11th Cir. 2017).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chanel, Inc. v. 21948352, an Individual, Business Entity, or Unincorporated Association
Although an evidentiary hearing is generally required, the Court need not conduct such a hearing “when . . . additional evidence would be truly unnecessary to a fully informed determination of damages.” Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 746 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting SEC v. Smyth, 420 F.3d 1225 , 1232 n.13 (11th Cir. 2005)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
YETI Coolers, LLC v. The Individuals, Business Entities and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
Although an evidentiary hearing is generally required, the Court need not conduct such a hearing “when . . . additional evidence would be truly unnecessary to a fully informed determination of damages.” Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 746 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting SEC v. Smyth, 420 F.3d 1225 , 1232 n.13 (11th Cir. 2005)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. The Individuals, Business Entities, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
Although an evidentiary hearing is generally required, the Court need not conduct such a hearing “when . . . additional evidence would be truly unnecessary to a fully informed determination of damages.” Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 746 (11th Cir. 2017).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chanel, Inc. v. 21913657
Although an evidentiary hearing is generally required, the Court need not conduct such a hearing “when . . . additional evidence would be truly unnecessary to a fully informed determination of damages.” Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 746 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting SEC v. Smyth, 420 F.3d 1225 , 1232 n.13 (11th Cir. 2005)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chanel, Inc. v. The Individuals, Business Entities, and Unincorporated Associations
Although an evidentiary hearing is generally required, the Court need not conduct such a hearing “when . . . additional evidence would be truly unnecessary to a fully informed determination of damages.” Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 746 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting SEC v. Smyth, 420 F.3d 1225 , 1232 n.13 (11th Cir. 2005)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fanatics, LLC v. fanatic2023.net
Although an evidentiary hearing is generally required, the Court need not conduct such a hearing “when . . . additional evidence would be truly unnecessary to a fully informed determination of damages.” Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 746 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting SEC v. Smyth, 420 F.3d 1225 , 1232 n.13 (11th Cir. 2005)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Karsten Manufacturing Corporation v. The Individual, Business Entity, or Unincorporated Association
Although an evidentiary hearing is generally required, the Court need not conduct such a hearing “when . . . additional evidence would be truly unnecessary to a fully informed determination of damages.” Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 746 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting SEC v. Smyth, 420 F.3d 1225 , 1232 n.13 (11th Cir. 2005)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chanel, Inc. v. The Individuals, Business Entities, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
Although an evidentiary hearing is generally required, the Court need not conduct such a hearing “when . . . additional evidence would be truly unnecessary to a fully informed determination of damages.” Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 746 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting SEC v. Smyth, 420 F.3d 1225 , 1232 n.13 (11th Cir. 2005)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
LDL Capital, LLC v. Blume
Although an evidentiary hearing is generally required, the Court need not conduct such a hearing “when . . . additional evidence would be truly unnecessary to a fully informed determination of damages.” Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 746 (11th Cir. 2017).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Simple Minds Limited v. The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
Although an evidentiary hearing is generally required, the Court need not conduct such a hearing “when . . . additional evidence would be truly unnecessary to a fully informed determination of damages.” Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 746 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting SEC v. Smyth, 420 F.3d 1225 , 1232 n.13 (11th Cir. 2005)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Keith R Carringer
(2×)
Analysis Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1)1 provides in part that “[o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party … from a final judgment [or] order for … excusable neglect.” “[T]he determination of what constitutes excusable neglect is an equitable one, taking into account the totality of the circumstances surrounding the party's omission.” Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int'l Ltd., 686 F. App'x 737, 743 (11th Cir. 2017).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kenneth M Mims
(2×)
Analysis Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1)1 provides in part that “[o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party … from a final judgment [or] order for … excusable neglect.” “[T]he determination of what constitutes excusable neglect is an equitable one, taking into account the totality of the circumstances surrounding the party's omission.” Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int'l Ltd., 686 F. App'x 737, 743 (11th Cir. 2017).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Spence v. Antojitos Mexicanos 1 Inc.
Although an evidentiary hearing is generally required, the Court need not conduct such a hearing “when . . . additional evidence would be truly unnecessary to a fully informed determination of damages.” Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 746 (11th Cir. 2017); see also Molina v. SMI Security Mgmt., Inc., No. 11-24245, 2013 WL 12092072 , at *5 (S.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bhogte v. Phoenix Management Services, Inc.
Courts consider the four factors set out by the United States Supreme Court in Pioneer Investment Services Co., including “the danger of prejudice to the [opposing party], the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith.” Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 743-44 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395 ); see also Sream, Inc. v. Ecstasy Fashion II, Inc., No. 18-cv-61216, 2018 WL 10374…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Louis Vuitton Malletier v. The Individuals, Business Entities, and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule A
Although an evidentiary hearing is generally required, the Court need not conduct such a hearing “when . . . additional evidence would be truly unnecessary to a fully informed determination of damages.” Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 746 (11th Cir. 2017).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
OMEGA SA v. The Individuals, Business Entities, And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A
Although an evidentiary hearing is generally required, the Court need not conduct such a hearing “when . . . additional evidence would be truly unnecessary to a fully informed determination of damages.” Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 746 (11th Cir. 2017).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
GSR Markets Limited v. Valkyrie Group, LLC
Id. “[T]he determination of excusable neglect is an equitable one that should take into account the totality of the circumstances surrounding the party’s omission.” Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 744 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
SPY OPTIC INC. v. The Individuals, Business Entities, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule \A\""
Although an evidentiary hearing is generally required, the Court need not conduct such a hearing “when . . . additional evidence would be truly unnecessary to a fully informed determination of damages.” Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 746 (11th Cir. 2017).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Perlman v. Babcock
Although an evidentiary hearing is generally required, the Court need not conduct such a hearing “when . . . additional evidence would be truly unnecessary to a fully informed determination of damages.” Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 746 (11th Cir. 2017); see also Molina v. SMI Security Mgmt, Inc., No. 11-cv-24245, 2013 WL 12092072 , at *5 (S.D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Estes Express Lines v. Coverlex, Inc.
“Damages in cases of default are governed by Rule 55.” Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int'l Ltd., 686 F. App'x 737, 746 (11th Cir. 2017).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chanel, Inc. v. The Individual, Partnership or Unincorporated Association
Although an evidentiary hearing is generally required, the Court need not conduct such a hearing “when . . . additional evidence would be truly unnecessary to a fully informed determination of damages.” Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 746 (11th Cir. 2017).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Moreiras v. Scottsdale Insurance Company
The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has stated that to establish grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1) “a defaulting party must show that: (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 to the complaint.” Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 743 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Worldwide Web Sys., Inc., 328 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2003)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
US Bank Trust v. Martin
If a hearing is needed “to determine what the judgment should provide,” the hearing “must be conducted before the judgment is entered.” Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 747 (11th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (quoting Smyth, 420 F.3d at 1231–32).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Walsh v. Slocumb Law Firm, LLC
And if a hearing is needed “to determine what the judgment should provide,” the hearing “must be conducted before the judgment is entered.” Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 747 (11th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (quoting Smyth, 420 F.3d at 1231–32).
discussed
Cited "see"
Cleary v. Austin Lloyd, Inc.
See Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 745 (11th Cir. 2017) (“We understand that the district court struck Leung’s letter as an unauthorized pro se filing on behalf of a corporation.
discussed
Cited "see"
Fikse v. Austin Lloyd, Inc.
See Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 745 (11th Cir. 2017) (“We understand that the district court struck Leung’s letter as an unauthorized pro se filing on behalf of a corporation.
discussed
Cited "see"
Eakins v. Austin Lloyd, Inc
See Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 745 (11th Cir. 2017) (“We understand that the district court struck Leung’s letter as an unauthorized pro se filing on behalf of a corporation.
discussed
Cited "see"
Nowell v. Austin Coins, Inc
See Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 745 (11th Cir. 2017) (“We understand that the district court struck Leung’s letter as an unauthorized pro se filing on behalf of a corporation.
discussed
Cited "see"
Keith v. Austin Coins, Inc.
See Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 745 (11th Cir. 2017) (“We understand that the district court struck Leung’s letter as an unauthorized pro se filing on behalf of a corporation.
discussed
Cited "see"
Grindle v. Austin Coins, Inc.
See Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 745 (11th Cir. 2017) (“We understand that the district court struck Leung’s letter as an unauthorized pro se filing on behalf of a corporation.
discussed
Cited "see"
Peak Property & Casualty Insurance Corporation v. Sevilla
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See id.
discussed
Cited "see"
Kupersmith v. McCutcheon
See Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int'l Ltd., 686 F. App'x 737, 745 (11th Cir. 2017) (finding a three-month delay and “delays of similar length...inexcusable without a good reason.”) The Court is unsure when, if ever, the exhibits would be produced to the Respondent and at what point the trial could be rescheduled.
discussed
Cited "see"
Sword v. Dolphin Moving Systems, Inc.
See Friedman v. Schiano, 777 F. App’x 324 , 333 n.15 (11th Cir. 2019) (distinguishing Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 743-44 (11th Cir. 2017), which reversed district court for failure to consider all relevant factors in denying 60(b) motion to set aside default).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States of America v. $27,300 in U.S. Currency
Though the language indicates a hearing is not a “per se requirement,” Eleventh Circuit precedent indicates that evidentiary hearings “are required in all but limited circumstances.” SEC v. Smythe, 420 F.3d 1225 , 1231-32 n. 13 (11th Cir. 2005); see also Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737 , 746- 47 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing Rule and Smythe).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ameris Bank, through its division, Balboa Capital Corporation v. Geaux Express Incorporated
Though the language indicates a hearing is not a “per se requirement,” Eleventh Circuit precedent indicates that evidentiary hearings “are required in all but limited circumstances.” SEC v. Smythe, 420 F.3d 1225 , 1231-32 n.13 (11th Cir. 2005); see also Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int'l Ltd., 686 F. App'x 737, 746-47 (11th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted). 1 In this Circuit, “[u]npublished opinions are not considered binding precedent, but they may be cited as persuasive authority.” 11th Cir. R. 36-2 (effective Dec. 1, 2014); see also Henry v. Comm’r of Soc.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A.) v. Mitchell
Though the language indicates a hearing is not a “per se requirement,” Eleventh Circuit precedent indicates that evidentiary hearings “are required in all but limited circumstances.” SEC v. Smythe, 420 F.3d 1225 , 1231-32 n. 13 (11th Cir. 2005); see also Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737 , 746- 47 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing Rule and Smythe).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
BMO Bank N.A. v. Bryant
Though the language indicates a hearing is not a “per se requirement,” Eleventh Circuit precedent indicates that evidentiary hearings “are required in all but limited circumstances.” SEC v. Smythe, 420 F.3d 1225 , 1231-32 n. 13 (11th Cir. 2005); see also Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737 , 746- 47 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing Rule and Smythe).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Pena v. Best Wholesale Grocers, LLC
A court may determine damages without holding a hearing “where all essential evidence is already of record.” SEC v. Smyth, 420 F.3d 1225 , 1232 n.13 (11th Cir. 2005); see also Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 746 (11th Cir. 2017) (stating evidentiary hearings are not required when “any additional evidence would be truly unnecessary to a fully informed determination of damages” (citation omitted)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Government Employees Insurance Company v. Shea
Though the language indicates a hearing is not a “per se requirement,” Eleventh Circuit precedent indicates that evidentiary hearings “are required in all but limited circumstances.” SEC v. Smythe, 420 F.3d 1225 , 1231-32 n. 13 (11th Cir. 2005); see also Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 746-47 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing Rule and Smythe).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
First Acceptance Insurance Company, Inc. v. Rosser
Though the language indicates a hearing is not a “per se requirement,” Eleventh Circuit precedent indicates that evidentiary hearings “are required in all but limited circumstances.” SEC v. Smythe, 420 F.3d 1225 , 1231-32 n. 13 (11th Cir. 2005); see also Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 746-47 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing Rule and Smythe). motions for default judgment against them (Docs. 43, 47, 49, 53) are DENIED, and Plaintiff is granted leave to refile those motions after the trial of the action on the merits against the remaining defendants. (2) The m…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rollason v. All State Van Lines Relocation, Inc.
Though the language indicates a hearing is not a “per se requirement,” Eleventh Circuit precedent indicates that evidentiary hearings “are required in all but limited circumstances.” SEC v. Smythe, 420 F.3d 1225 , 1231-32 n. 13 (11th Cir. 2005); see also Safari Programs, Inc. v. CollectA Int’l Ltd., 686 F. App’x 737, 746-47 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing Rule and Smythe). 2 The Court requested Mr. Franklin to attend the telephonic evidentiary hearing to clarify whether he represented Defendant All State.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Thomas Mellor BAINS
v.
Thomas Mellor BAINS
No. 16-12928 Non-Argument Calendar.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Apr 25, 2017.
686 F. App'x 737
Jason Sterling Beaton, Pamela C. Marsh, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tallahassee, FL, Robert G. Davies, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Anderson, Carnes, Martin.
Cited by 37 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM:
Michael Ufferman, appointed counsel for Thomas Mellor Bains in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent, examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Bains’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.