Full Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 1, 2020. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ Nos. 3D19-575 & 3D19-574 Lower Tribunal No. 15-875-K ________________ Rymed Technologies, LLC, et al., Appellants, vs. KIG, LLC, et al., Appellees. Appeals from non-final orders the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Luis M. Garcia, Judge. Hershoff Lupino & Yagel, LLP and Russell A. Yagel; Shendell & Pollock, P.L. and Diran V. Seropian and Zachary R. Needell (Boca Raton), for appellants. Zarco Einhorn Salkowski & Brito, P.A., and Robert Zarco and Alaina B. Karsten and Brenda Phang, for appellees. Before EMAS, C.J., and LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Purdue v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 259 So. 3d 918, 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (“[C]laim that [movant] did not receive the master dismissal order is generally cognizable under rule 1.540(b)(1).”); John Deere Const. & Forestry Co. v. Lorelys Elec. Corp., 69 So. 3d 1099, 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (affirming rule 1.540(b)(2) relief where record showed court could have granted identical relief under 1.540(b)(1)); Okeechobee Imps., Inc. v. Am. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Fla., 558 So. 2d 506, 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (rule 1.540(b)(1) relief granted where complaint became lost by being accidentally placed in non-litigation related file dealing with same subject); Carter, Hawley, Hale Stores, Inc. v. Whitman, 516 So. 2d 83, 83-84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (finding mistake under 1.540(b)(1) where complaint “became ‘lost’ in a pile of unrelated documents”); Falkner v. Amerifirst Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 489 So. 2d 758, 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (courts “obligated to grant relief” where “uncontroverted facts showed [movants] did not receive notice”); Francisco v. Victoria Marine Shipping, Inc., 486 So. 2d 1386, 1389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (observing that motions for rehearing and for relief from judgment are “[b]oth mechanisms [that] provide a mode of attacking a final judgment”); Gibson v. Buice, 381 So. 2d 349, 351-52 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (holding rules 1.540(a) and 1.540(b) available, “[w]here the excusable neglect relied upon is lack of notice of the rendition of a final judgment”). 2