28 U.S.C. § 1332(A)

236 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Phillips v. Unijax, Inc.
  625 F.2d 54· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to remove the case because the claims against the defendants were not separate and independent, and therefore, the subsequent summary judgment was invalid.
• Brainin v. Melikian
  396 F.2d 153· 3d Cir.· 1968-05-03 ·cited 4×
• Samaha v. The Presbyterian Hosp. IN the City OF NEW York
  757 F.2d 529· 2d Cir.· 1985-03-18 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a district court abuses its discretion by denying a motion to amend a complaint to drop non-diverse defendants solely to preserve diversity jurisdiction, absent prejudice to the remaining defendants.
• Bluesky Prop. Dev. & Mgmt., LLC v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co.
  2021 WL 230178· M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiffs must supplement their motion to remand by providing the citizenship of all members of the LLC, as the current information is insufficient to determine diversity jurisdiction.
• Luise Light v. Wolf
  816 F.2d 746· D.C. Cir.· 1987-04-17 ·cited 2×
  Service of process on a federal official is insufficient if the action substantively implicates the official's duties, even if framed as a private suit, and service on the United States is also required under Rule 4(d)(5).
• Lewis v. Cook
  409 F.2d 619· 6th Cir.· 1969-04-10 ·cited 2×
  A plaintiff's good faith claim for an amount exceeding the jurisdictional threshold is sufficient to establish jurisdiction, even if subsequent evidence reveals the actual amount is less, unless it's a legal certainty from the outset that the plaintiff cannot recover the claimed
• Ziegenhorn v. United States
  2018 WL 10140148· N.D. Fla.· 2024-10-10 ·cited 1×
  The court recommended dismissal of the case without prejudice because the pro se plaintiff failed to comply with court orders to file a proper complaint and pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis.
• Mikesell v. FIA Card Servs., N.A.
  75 F. Supp. 489· M.D. Fla.· 2013-04-04 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the notice of removal was timely because the initial complaint did not facially establish federal diversity jurisdiction, and a subsequent settlement demand provided the necessary amount in controversy within the removal period.
• Grima v. The Standard Fire Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-16
  The court held that the defendant's removal of the case was untimely because the plaintiff's residency in Florida was ascertainable from the initial complaint and attachments, triggering the 30-day removal period at that time. The court denied attorney's fees for the untimely rem
• Moore v. USAA Gen. Indem. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-12
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction based on the evidence provided.
• Watson Brickell Dev., LLC v. ACE Am. Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-12-30
  The court held that because the plaintiff and defendants shared citizenship in the same states, complete diversity was lacking, requiring remand to state court.
• FT. Myers TAV Apts, LLC v. Everest Nat'l Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-22
  The court held that plaintiffs' complaint must be dismissed without prejudice because it failed to properly allege diversity of citizenship, a prerequisite for federal subject matter jurisdiction.
• AMT Title Servs. of Tex., LLC v. TAG Agro, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-19
  The court held that an amended complaint must be dismissed without leave to amend because the plaintiff, a limited liability company, failed to properly allege the citizenship of its members, thus failing to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity.
• Henry v. Blazin Wings, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-21
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold, requiring remand to state court.
• 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.
• 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.
• Figueroa v. Wise US Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-04
  The court held that most of the plaintiff's claims failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and the remaining claim fell below the jurisdictional threshold.
• Travise Johnson v. Doe
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-31
  The court held that the defendant failed to sufficiently establish the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction based on the provided evidence.
• Libert v. Fed. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-17
  The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was timely because the thirty-day clock did not begin until the defendant received an amended pleading or other paper from which removability could be ascertained, which was after the initial complaint.
• 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.
• Williams v. Walmart Stores E., LP
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-23
  The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was insufficient to establish federal diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy was not proven to exceed $75,000.
• 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.
• 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.
• Treace Med. Concepts, Inc. v. Pine Grove Ambulatory Surgical Ctr., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-13
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately allege diversity jurisdiction because the pleadings did not properly state the citizenship of the defendant LLC and its members.
• 3817 Waterfront, LLC v. Gen. Star Indem. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-12
  The court held that the defendant failed to adequately establish diversity jurisdiction by only showing the plaintiff's member's residence, not domicile.
• Harkins v. Knipp
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-05
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction because the defendant did not adequately plead the citizenship of one of the parties and did not provide sufficient evidence to meet the amount in controversy requirement.
• Villas Las Palmas Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-07-31
  The court held that the plaintiff did not fraudulently join the roofer, as there was a possibility of stating a cause of action against him and the joinder satisfied permissive joinder standards under Rule 20.
• Wheeler v. The Standard Fire Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-31
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish diversity jurisdiction by not properly proving its principal place of business, requiring remand.
• U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Rivabem
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-07-15
  Defendants are not entitled to attorney's fees because they did not prevail on a significant issue in the litigation, as the case was dismissed for the plaintiff's failure to serve process.
• AST & Sci. LLC v. Delclaux P'rs SA
  11th Cir.· 2025-07-09
  The court held that a state-law breach-of-contract claim involving whether a party acted as an unregistered broker-dealer does not present a substantial federal question sufficient for federal-question jurisdiction under the Grable test.
• U.S. Bank Tr. Nat'l Ass'n v. Alaniz
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-25
  The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was deficient in establishing diversity jurisdiction and in complying with procedural requirements for removal.
• v. Bator
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-20
  The Court holds that the plaintiff's complaint constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading and strikes it, giving the plaintiff an opportunity to replead.
• Shue v. Sam's E., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-09
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish the amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction and ordered the defendant to supplement its notice of removal.
• Belton v. Walmart, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-03
  The court held that the plaintiff's testimony regarding track-like footprints in the water, combined with the circumstances, created a genuine issue of material fact regarding the defendant's constructive notice of the dangerous condition, thus precluding summary judgment.
• Valdastri v. Valdastri
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-02
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint fails to establish subject-matter jurisdiction due to insufficient allegations of diversity of citizenship.
• Santos v. Nahum
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-04-07
  The court held that the defendants failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at the time of removal, thus granting the plaintiff's motion to remand.
• Stanziale v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-02
  The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint was deficient in its jurisdictional allegations and constituted a shotgun pleading, requiring dismissal without prejudice.
• Bellaire Multifamily Prop. Mgmt. LLC v. Lyndon S. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-20
  The court held that the plaintiff must provide further documentation to establish subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA and diversity jurisdiction, as the current allegations are insufficient.
• Rosenbaum v. QBE Specialty Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-26
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum, and therefore, the case must be remanded to state court.
• The Gray Ins. Co. v. Little Rd. Express Wash, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-13
  The court recommended granting the plaintiff's motion for default judgment against the defendant, finding proper service and sufficient well-pled allegations to support the requested declaratory relief.
• Canoe Creek Neighborhood Ass'n, Inc. v. Douse
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-07
  The court held that removal was improper because the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, as the plaintiff's complaint did not present a federal question and the defendant's federal defense did not confer jurisdiction.
• Saylor v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-23
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, requiring remand to state court.
• Vance v. Doue & Co LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-01-17
  The court denied the motion for default final judgment because the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege subject-matter jurisdiction and had discrepancies in requested fees and costs.
• It Works Mktg., Inc. v. Kaufmann
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-03
  The court recommended granting the plaintiff's motion for default judgment and confirmation of the arbitration award, as the threshold requirements were met and no grounds for vacating the award existed.
• Malhotra v. Kumar
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-05
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish subject-matter jurisdiction and venue because the complaint did not properly allege the defendants' citizenship and failed to satisfy venue requirements.
• Dania Live 1748 II, LLC v. Saito Dania, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-11-22
  The court held that the February Letter Agreement unambiguously set the rent commencement date as December 1, 2020, voiding the co-tenancy provision, and thus the tenant breached the lease by failing to pay rent from that date.
• Kolar v. Angiodynamics, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-11-18
  The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to properly allege diversity jurisdiction by adequately stating the defendants' citizenship.
• Greenberg v. Fca US LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-11-13
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
• Verardi v. Mercedes- Benz Fin. Servs. USA, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-10-23
  The court held that the amended complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to adequately allege a basis for the court's jurisdiction.
• Hennessy v. Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-18
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, requiring remand to state court.