both Henry and Noel attested that the calendaring responsibility in his office lies solely with his assistants, and that in this instance, his assistants failed to calendar the deadlines set forth m the relevant standing orders. Moreover, office preparations for Hurricane Matthew contributed to the assistants’ failure to follow normal office procedure and calendar the deadlines. Counsel also attested that but for the failure to calendar the deadlines, he would have objected to the time sheets submitted by Reverse Mortgage and Nutter. These undisputed facts constitute the type of secretarial error or breakdown in normal office procedure, which constitute excusable neglect pursuant to rule 1.540(b). See Carter, Hawley, Hale Stores, Inc. v. Whitman, 516 So.2d 83, 83-84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (<HOLDING>). III. CONCLUSION Because the failure to comply
holding that neglectful but understandable breakdown in defendants established office practice that resulted in the complaint being lost on the desk of general counsel constituted excusable neglect recognizing that although the term good cause is undefined it is at least as demanding as the excusable neglect standard recognizing that a prosecutors office is an entity and that information in the possession of one attorney in the office must be attributed to the office as a whole holding that good cause means at a minimum excusable neglect holding that an outofstate attorney paying rent for a desk in an attorneys instate office had satisfied the office requirement