USCA11 Case: 22-14088 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 05/23/2023 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 2 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 dis-
missing 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 underpay-
ment, and Defendants eventually demoted Vera from a sales asso-
ciate to custodial work, which precluded him from earning com-
missions 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 South-
ern District of Florida.
USCA11 Case: 22-14088 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 05/23/2023 Page: 3 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’ pre-
trial 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 De-
fendants 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 or-
der 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: 4 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: 5 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 preju-
dice 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 resolu-
tion of the case, and the fact that he has already refiled his com-
plaint, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discre-
tion in dismissing his claims. 2
IV. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s order dis-
missing 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 lib-
erally, 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 ap-
peal, we lack jurisdiction to review that order.
USCA11 Case: 22-14088 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 05/23/2023 Page: 6 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 22-14088
AFFIRMED.
