28 U.S.C. § 1331

1,242 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 85 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Carter v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc.
  61 F. Supp. 2d 1237· N.D. Fla.· 1999-03-08 ·cited 1×
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
• Lemay v. Budget Rent a Car Sys., Inc.
  993 F. Supp. 1448· M.D. Fla.· 1997-07-09 ·cited 1×
  The court held that claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) are not removable to federal court and must be remanded to state court.
• Garcia v. Aerovias De Mexico
  896 F. Supp. 1216· S.D. Fla.· 1995-02-01 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the Warsaw Convention preempts state law claims and provides an exclusive federal cause of action for international air transportation, thus denying the motion to remand.
• Boca Ciega Hotel, Inc. v. Bouchard Transp. Co.
  844 F. Supp. 1512· M.D. Fla.· 1994-02-18 ·cited 1×
  The court held that plaintiffs' Oil Pollution Act claim must be dismissed for failure to present claims to the responsible party, and diversity jurisdiction is lacking due to common citizenship and failure to meet the amount in controversy requirement.
• O'Neal v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  841 F. Supp. 391· M.D. Fla.· 1993-12-10 ·cited 1×
  The court held that Plaintiffs were not entitled to the protections of the Automobile Dealers' Day in Court Act because they lacked a written franchise agreement with the defendants. Furthermore, any claims related to the Braun dealership were vested in the court-appointed receiv
• Int'l Eateries of Am., Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs
  838 F. Supp. 580· S.D. Fla.· 1993-10-29 ·cited 1×
  The court held that abstention under the Pullman and Burford doctrines was appropriate because the validity of the county ordinance under state law presented unsettled questions of substantial local concern that could moot federal constitutional issues.
• Belair v. Lombardi
  828 F. Supp. 50· M.D. Fla.· 1993-08-03 ·cited 1×
  The court held that while federal question jurisdiction was not established because state law claims were also available, abstention under Younger v. Harris was appropriate, leading to dismissal.
• City OF E. ST. Louis & Carl Officer v. Cir. Court FOR the Twentieth Jud. Cir.
  986 F.2d 1142· 7th Cir.· 1993-02-25 ·cited 1×
  The court affirmed the district court's imposition of sanctions against counsel for filing a frivolous lawsuit lacking subject matter jurisdiction.
• Albradco, Inc. v. Gus Bevona
  982 F.2d 82· 2d Cir.· 1992-12-21 ·cited 1×
  A federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action claiming ERISA preemption if the plaintiff is not an enumerated party under ERISA § 502(a), and LMRA § 301 does not preempt a state law claim for corporate shareholder liability when the claim is
• Northrop Corp. v. AIL Sys., Inc.
  959 F.2d 1424· 7th Cir.· 1992-04-10 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a contract dispute between two private defense contractors over a teaming agreement does not implicate a uniquely federal interest sufficient to invoke federal common law jurisdiction.
• William E. Anderson, Jr., M.D. v. Sullivan
  959 F.2d 690· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-13 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a physician must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking federal court review of Medicare exclusion, and the claim for a preliminary hearing was moot.
• Anne Marie Smith v. Indus. Valley Title Ins. Co.
  957 F.2d 90· 3d Cir.· 1992-02-24 ·cited 1×
  The dissent argues that federal question jurisdiction exists when a state law claim necessarily depends on the construction of a federal statute, even without a private federal remedy.
• Henry v. Robey-Barber Ins. Servs. Corp.
  777 F. Supp. 1554· M.D. Fla.· 1991-10-17 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint, as pled, failed to establish that the insurance benefits were not provided under an employee benefit plan, and therefore the causes of action were preempted by ERISA.
• Am. V.I.P. Limousines, Inc. v. Dade Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs
  757 F. Supp. 1382· S.D. Fla.· 1991-02-13 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the County's regulations and fees for limousine services at MIA did not violate the Commerce Clause or the Equal Protection Clause, as they were rationally related to legitimate government interests in traffic control and safety.
• Alltel Tenn., Inc. v. Tenn. Pub. Serv. Comm'n
  913 F.2d 305· 6th Cir.· 1990-09-10 ·cited 1×
  The court held that federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over the telephone companies' claims and that abstention was improper. However, the case is not ripe for adjudication due to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
• A.E. Finley & Assocs., Inc. v. United States
  898 F.2d 1165· 6th Cir.· 1990-03-23 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Finley's claim was not exclusively within the Claims Court's jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. The court affirmed the district court's judgment on the merits.
• Mendelson v. City of St. Cloud
  719 F. Supp. 1065· M.D. Fla.· 1989-08-23 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the display of a Latin cross atop a publicly owned water tower violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it lacks a secular purpose, has the primary effect of endorsing religion, and fosters excessive entanglement with religion.
• Pinkham v. Lewiston Orchards Irrigation Dist.
  862 F.2d 184· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-29 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' tort claims for damages caused by flooding on their allotted land do not fall within the scope of federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1353 or 25 U.S.C. § 345, as these statutes are intended to protect rights appurtenant to allotments, not co
• Columbia Marine Servs., Inc. v. Reffet Ltd.
  861 F.2d 18· 2d Cir.· 1988-11-02 ·cited 1×
  The court held that Columbia Marine Services, Inc. lacked a private right of action under the tax treaty to claim refunds of federal excise taxes paid by U.K. insurers, and thus its claims for conversion and RICO violations also failed.
• Orange Ridge, Inc. v. State
  696 F. Supp. 600· S.D. Fla.· 1988-07-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that neither the United States nor the State of Florida has waived sovereign immunity, and thus the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims.
• Williams v. Hous. Auth. of Sanford
  709 F. Supp. 1554· M.D. Fla.· 1988-06-28 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove sex discrimination, as the alleged direct evidence was either innocuous, inadmissible hearsay, or contradicted by the alleged discriminator's sworn testimony.
• Telecredit Serv. Ctr. v. First Nat'l Bank of the Fla. Keys
  679 F. Supp. 1101· S.D. Fla.· 1988-02-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that removal was improper because the plaintiff's complaint, alleging a contractual dispute over chargebacks, did not present a federal question and the Edge Act did not confer jurisdiction over the transaction.
• Leach v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc.
  651 F. Supp. 713· S.D. Fla.· 1986-11-26 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the statute of limitations was tolled during the pursuit of internal union remedies and that federal question jurisdiction does not require an amount in controversy.
• Paisey v. Vitale
  634 F. Supp. 741· S.D. Fla.· 1986-04-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that injunctive relief against the state court judge and the state defamation action is barred by judicial immunity and the Anti-Injunction Act, but a claim for damages based on retaliation under Title VI may proceed.
• Coral Gables Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Harbert
  527 F. Supp. 284· S.D. Fla.· 1981-12-04 ·cited 1×
  A federal savings and loan's suit for mortgage foreclosure based on a 'due on sale' clause, even if authorized by federal regulation, does not arise under federal law for subject matter jurisdiction purposes if the underlying cause of action is state law.
• Murphy v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Gov't Auth.
  S.D. Fla.· 2026-01-26
  The court granted the motions to dismiss, finding the federal takings claim failed for not alleging public use and dismissing state law claims for lack of jurisdiction.
• Zachery Pernell Hicks v. The Home Depot Store #0256
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-18
  The court recommended denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the complaint without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction.
• Rachid Amrani v. Sec'y, Dep't of Homeland Sec.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-17
  The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the agency's decision to grant employment authorization is committed to agency discretion by law and is not subject to judicial review under the APA or Mandamus Act.
• Delta Build Servs., Inc. v. E2F Homes, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-17
  The court held that the mere reliance on federal statutes as predicate acts for a state RICO claim does not create federal question jurisdiction, and therefore the case must be remanded to state court.
• Romero v. LVNV Funding, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-17
  The court held that a complaint invoking federal statutes establishes federal question jurisdiction, and that a complaint failing to connect factual allegations to specific claims is an impermissible shotgun pleading.
• Macys v. Century Golf P'rs GP LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-14
  The court recommends granting the motion for default judgment in part, finding sufficient allegations for ADA retaliation but not for disability discrimination due to lack of specificity regarding 'qualified individual' status.
• Williams v. Sec'y, Dep't of Homeland Sec.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-14
  The court held that the pro se plaintiff's complaint was due to be stricken for failing to comply with federal and local rules regarding jurisdiction, pleading, and formatting.
• Bryant v. Lagos
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-11-14
  The court held that it has jurisdiction over all counts and that any procedural defect in removal was cured, thus denying remand; it also granted motions to dismiss due to shotgun pleading.
• Butler v. Marion Cnty. Sheriff's Off.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-06
  The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and dismissed the federal claims with prejudice, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
• Makozy v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-11-04
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims are time-barred because the current lawsuit was filed outside the statutory limitations period, and the prior dismissal, though without prejudice, was effectively with prejudice due to the statute of limitations.
• United States v. Leggett
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-28
  The court held that the defendant's grounds for removing a state criminal case to federal court were insufficient.
• State v. Armstrong
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-10-21
  A state criminal prosecution cannot be removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a), or 1443(1) because these statutes apply to civil actions or require rights related to racial equality, which the defendant did not demonstrate.
• Willi Anne Etienne v. Reka Beane
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-10-15
  The court recommends dismissal of the action without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to state a claim and did not comply with court orders regarding filing fees and amended complaints.
• Vireo Sys., Inc. v. Keyview Labs, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-10
  The court held that a plaintiff must sufficiently allege citizenship of all parties to establish diversity jurisdiction, and allegations based on information and belief are insufficient.
• McCoy v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-22
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to adequately allege diversity jurisdiction due to defective allegations regarding party citizenship and amount in controversy.
• Kureti v. Coast Prof'l, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-19
  The court held that a private debt collector cannot violate due process rights and that diversity jurisdiction was not properly established due to lack of complete diversity. The court also found a forum selection clause in loan documents to be enforceable, requiring dismissal of
• Aaron J. W., M.D., P.A. v. Drago
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-18
  The court held that a state-law breach of contract claim referencing a federal trade secret definition does not raise a substantial federal question, and therefore, federal question jurisdiction is lacking.
• Teleties, LLC v. Defendants #1-18 as Identified in Schedule "A"
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-11
  The court recommended granting Plaintiff's motion for default judgment and a permanent injunction against defaulting defendants for patent infringement.
• Kellyman v. Columbia Debt Recovery LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-10
  The court held that removal was proper based on federal question jurisdiction, and it would exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
• Chloe Carnegie v. Heritage Park Nursing Ctr. LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-04
  The court recommends granting default judgment on liability for all counts, awarding specific economic damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, but requires further notice regarding noneconomic damages.
• Taillard v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-09-03
  The court held that the plaintiff sufficiently stated claims for breach of express warranty and negligent repair, but not for revocation of acceptance due to lack of privity.
• Regla Fernandez v. Frederickson
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-02
  The court recommended dismissal of the complaint without prejudice because it lacked federal question jurisdiction, was subject to abstention doctrines, and claims were barred by judicial and litigation immunities.
• Jones v. Hogan Servs., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-02
  The court granted plaintiff's motion for final default judgment, awarding back pay and front pay damages for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
• Webb v. Doe
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-29
  The court held that it must remand the case to state court because the addition of a non-diverse defendant destroyed subject matter jurisdiction.
• Dietrich v. Tri-Pillar Contractors LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-28
  The court granted plaintiff's motion for default judgment, awarding damages for unpaid wages, worthless checks, and FLSA violations.