1,242 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 85 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-12-01
The court held that the Governor's consent to removal was timely, and federal question jurisdiction existed, thus denying the motions to remand.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-12-01
The court held that removal to federal court was improper because the plaintiff's amended complaint did not establish federal question or diversity jurisdiction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-10-30
The court held that a defendant's assertion of federal question jurisdiction based solely on a federally insured mortgage is insufficient to establish federal jurisdiction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-10-29
The court held that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation was properly adopted, and the Amended Complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-10-22
The court granted the motion to remand because the case did not present a federal question, but denied the request for attorney's fees.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-10-22
The court held that the arbitration clause in the agreements is valid and enforceable under the New York Convention, requiring the plaintiff to arbitrate his claims.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-10-21
The court entered a Stipulated Final Permanent Injunction Order, resolving all disputes between Wyndham and the Defendants. The injunction permanently restrains and enjoins the Defendants from engaging in various advertising, marketing, and trade practices related to timeshare in
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-10-13
The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus diversity jurisdiction was not met.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-09-15
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction because the plaintiff's complaint only alleged residence, not citizenship.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-07-17
The court appointed a special master to investigate allegations of non-compliance with a preliminary injunction regarding detainee conditions, deferring a ruling on the motion to compel.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-07-14
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the state law claims did not arise under federal law, despite the defendant's removal.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-29
The court held that the defendant failed to adequately allege diversity jurisdiction because it did not sufficiently plead the citizenship of the plaintiff's decedent or the defendant LLC's sole member.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-05
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal failed to adequately allege its citizenship, making it impossible to determine if diversity jurisdiction exists.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-01
The court held that there is no constitutional right to participate in high school athletics, thus the Fourteenth Amendment claim is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but the state constitutional claim can proceed under supplemental jurisdiction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-05-31
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff's state law claim did not present a substantial federal question, even though the defendant's bankruptcy was mentioned.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-04-08
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's common law claims for fraud and negligence.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-03-19
The Court held that the plaintiff's civil rights complaint is barred by the statute of limitations and is therefore dismissed as frivolous.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-03-17
The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the complaint only pleaded state-law claims and did not present a federal question.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-03-16
A federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over state-law fraud and breach of contract claims, even if patent law issues are implicated in the damages calculation, if those issues are not necessarily raised, disputed, substantial, and resolvable without disrupting the fede
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-02-28
The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the dispute likely arose in connection with the business activities of the associated person and that the definition of 'customer' under FINRA rules is broad.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-01-29
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint, while alleging plausible Title VII claims, was dismissed without prejudice because it failed to properly establish federal question jurisdiction and lacked clarity regarding procedural prerequisites and party identification, requirin
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-01-14
The court held that venue for a breach of contract claim against a Write Your Own (WYO) flood insurance company is governed by 42 U.S.C. § 4072, requiring the suit to be filed in the district where the insured property is located.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-12-13
The court held that the plaintiff failed to properly allege the defendant's citizenship, which is necessary to establish diversity jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-12-04
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary injunction because it failed to comply with procedural rules and lacked federal subject matter jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-11-02
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case and dismissed the complaint.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-10-31
The Court dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to allege a basis for federal jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-10-22
A state-law claim does not arise under federal law for removal purposes if the federal issue is not substantial and its resolution would upset the federal-state balance of responsibilities.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-09-25
The court held that a state law mortgage foreclosure action does not arise under federal law merely because the loan is FHA-insured, and thus, removal to federal court was improper.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-09-25
The court dismissed the case because the complaint failed to state a claim and lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-09-09
The court held that the defendant failed to sufficiently allege diversity jurisdiction because the complaint lacked specific facts regarding the citizenship of the parties.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-09-06
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint is an impermissible shotgun pleading and fails to establish federal jurisdiction, requiring dismissal without prejudice.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-09-04
The court held that a removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy, including attorney's fees, exceeds the jurisdictional threshold at the time of removal, and prospective fees are too speculative.
-
122 La. 14·
M.D. Fla.·
2019-03-29
The Court held that Plaintiff's state law claims were not completely preempted by ERISA, and therefore, removal to federal court was improper.
-
117 La. 561·
M.D. Fla.·
2019-02-15
The court held that removal was improper because the Medicare Act does not grant federal courts original federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under it, and the defendant, a Medicare Advantage Organization, did not act under the control of a federal officer for remova
-
Fla. 5th DCA·
2018-10-15
Section 1367(d) tolls the statute of limitations for state law claims dismissed in federal court, regardless of whether the federal claims were frivolous or lacked subject matter jurisdiction, provided the state claims were asserted under supplemental jurisdiction and refiled wit
-
31 La. 535·
M.D. Fla.·
2018-07-23
The court held that a bad faith claim, added by amendment to an underlying coverage action, cannot be removed to federal court more than one year after the original action commenced, even if the bad faith claim itself accrued later.
-
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133884·
S.D. Fla.·
2015-09-23
The court held that general maritime claims and Jones Act claims are not removable to federal court without an independent basis for jurisdiction, even after the 2011 amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1441.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2015-02-11
The court held that transfer of the action to the District of Columbia is warranted for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice, as the operative facts and governing law are centered there.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2015-01-06
The court held that the plaintiff's state law claims were completely preempted by ERISA because they required interpretation of the ERISA plan and the plaintiff had standing through assignment, thus federal question jurisdiction existed and the case should be dismissed for failur
-
1990 WL 172538·
M.D. Fla.·
2013-03-28
The court held that removal was improper because there was no diversity jurisdiction due to the lack of fraudulent joinder, and no federal question jurisdiction because the plaintiff's claims did not arise under federal law or the Copyright Act.
-
311 F. Supp. 2d 14·
S.D. Fla.·
2012-11-09
The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the debt collector's calls constituted harassment under FDCPA §§ 1692d and 1692d(5), but granted summary judgment on the claim under § 1692c(a)(2) because the collector did not have knowledge of the debto
-
801 F. Supp. 2d 1344·
M.D. Fla.·
2011-08-02
The court held that the agency's denial of EAD applications was not arbitrary or capricious, and thus granted the motion to dismiss.
-
721 F. Supp. 2d 1201·
M.D. Fla.·
2010-06-14
The court held that while some claims must be arbitrated under the New York Convention, Jones Act claims cannot be compelled to arbitration due to prospective waiver of statutory rights.
-
707 F. Supp. 2d 1351·
S.D. Fla.·
2010-04-26
The rule of unanimity, requiring all defendants to join in a removal notice, does not apply to actions removed under 12 U.S.C. § 632, a special removal statute.
-
727 F. Supp. 2d 1350·
S.D. Fla.·
2009-12-01
The court held that federal question jurisdiction was lacking because the plaintiffs' claims under the Florida Whistleblower's Act did not require interpretation of federal law, even though federal statutes were referenced in the factual allegations.
-
619 F. Supp. 2d 1353·
S.D. Fla.·
2009-05-20
The court held that removal to federal court was improper because the Medicare Act, as applied in this case, does not grant federal question jurisdiction, and therefore the case must be remanded to state court.
-
605 F. Supp. 2d 1230·
M.D. Fla.·
2009-03-16
The court held that a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a state law bill of discovery absent an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.
-
564 F. Supp. 2d 1357·
S.D. Fla.·
2008-07-11
The court held that a defendant's failure to timely and bindingly manifest consent to removal, despite oral or email assurances, warrants remand.
-
545 F. Supp. 2d 1225·
N.D. Fla.·
2008-03-12
The court held that the "grandfather rules" for flood insurance only allow policyholders to pay lower premiums based on prior flood zone classifications, not to have flood losses adjusted under those prior classifications. Equitable estoppel is generally unavailable against the g
-
496 F. Supp. 2d 1330·
M.D. Fla.·
2007-07-10
The court held that the failure to conduct mandatory five-year status reviews under the Endangered Species Act is an agency action unlawfully withheld, reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act, and that the ESA's citizen-suit provision does not preclude APA review.