Alejandro Videla, Appellant, v. Hitomi Ogino, Appellee. (2026)

Affirmed. See Hess v. Hess, 290 So. 3d 512, 518 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (“Rule 12.540(b) allows a trial court to relieve a party from a final judgment on grounds of newly discovered evidence, which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial or rehearing.”); Shlimbaum v. Shlimbaum, 394 So. 3d 1157, 1161 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024) (“[M]otions filed under rule 12.540(b) are governed by the body of law applicable to rule 1.540(b).” (quotation omitted)); Brooks v. Brooks, 340 So. 3d 543, 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“[T]his Court generally reviews an order denying a rule 1.540[(b)] motion for abuse of discretion ․”); Milgen Dev., Inc. v. Goodman, 302 So. 2d 491, 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (“[T]he motion was properly denied because the letter would have no material difference in the outcome of the case․ [I]nasmuch as it does not appear that the evidence is such as will probably change the result if a new trial is granted, denial of the motion was correct.”).

PER CURIAM.