-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-03-28
The court orders the parties to file a joint brief demonstrating subject matter jurisdiction, including evidence of party citizenship and the amount in controversy.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-02-25
The court held that a permanent resident alien domiciled in the same state as a defendant cannot establish diversity jurisdiction, even if the defendant is a corporation with a principal place of business in that state.
-
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.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-08-13
The court held that the plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint contained shotgun pleadings in Counts 3 and 4, warranting dismissal with prejudice, and denied leave to amend.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-04-30
The court held that the defendant's motion to dismiss should be denied because the plaintiff sufficiently stated claims for relief and the court had subject-matter jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-02-06
The court held that the parties' pleadings failed to adequately allege citizenship for diversity jurisdiction purposes, requiring them to file specific disclosure statements.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-12-08
The court held that removal was improper due to a lack of complete diversity, as a non-diverse party was not fraudulently joined.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-06-15
The court held that the plaintiff failed to properly plead diversity jurisdiction by not alleging the principal place of business for either party.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-05-30
The court held that the complaint must be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to inadequate pleading of diversity.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-04-28
The court held that the defendant properly removed the case because complete diversity existed after disregarding the fictitious defendant, and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-03-22
The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint failed to adequately plead diversity jurisdiction because it did not properly allege the citizenship of the individual plaintiffs or the limited liability company defendants.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-01-23
The court held that the Amended Complaint failed to sufficiently allege the citizenship of the parties to establish diversity jurisdiction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-01-19
The court held that a complaint must sufficiently allege the citizenship of all members of an unincorporated entity and the incorporation and principal place of business of a corporation to establish diversity jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-10-11
The court held that the defendant failed to sufficiently establish subject-matter jurisdiction based on diverse citizenship, requiring it to show cause why the case should not be remanded.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-10-04
The court held that it lacked sufficient information to determine subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity and ordered parties to supplement the record with evidence of citizenship.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-09-16
The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden to establish diversity jurisdiction because the citizenship of the plaintiff's members could not be discerned from the provided allegations and evidence.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-09-14
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to adequately plead the citizenship of the corporate defendant.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-10-14
The court held that removal was timely and diversity jurisdiction was sufficiently established, denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-08-03
The court held that a party cannot obtain a traditional injunction without asserting an independent cause of action, and that the petitioner failed to meet the requirements for an ex parte temporary restraining order.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-02-12
The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately allege citizenship for diversity jurisdiction, requiring further amendment.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-12-28
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint failed to allege complete diversity of citizenship.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-03-23
The court held that removal was improper because complete diversity of citizenship was lacking between the plaintiff and defendant.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-03-02
The court held that the defendant met its burden to establish complete diversity and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, thus denying the motion to remand.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-02-24
The court held that removal was untimely because the defendant had sufficient notice of the amount in controversy over thirty days before filing the notice of removal. The court also found that the diversity jurisdiction exception for direct actions against insurers did not apply
-
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.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-10-31
The court held that attorney's fees and costs incurred at the time of removal, not projected future fees, should be considered for the amount in controversy in removed cases.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-10-02
A claim for declaratory relief is properly dismissed if it is duplicative of a breach of contract claim and the plaintiff can obtain full relief through the breach of contract claim.
-
254 F. Supp. 2d 1316·
S.D. Fla.·
2003-03-25
The court held that removal was improper because complete diversity was lacking and the Airline Deregulation Act did not completely preempt the state law claims.
-
998 F.2d 728·
9th Cir.·
1993-07-12
A bad faith insurance action brought by an insured against their own insurer is not a 'direct action' under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), and therefore does not preclude diversity jurisdiction.
-
959 F.2d 628·
6th Cir.·
1992-03-26
The court held that unchallenged facts in a removal petition do not constitute conclusive findings of fact, and the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction can be raised for the first time on appeal.
-
897 F.2d 461·
10th Cir.·
1990-02-27
The court held that a party can raise a lack of subject matter jurisdiction at any stage of a case, even after a prior appeal and remand, if the case is still pending and no final judgment has merged the jurisdictional finding. Therefore, the district court erred in denying TIPCO