-
944 F. Supp. 876·
M.D. Fla.·
1996-10-30
·cited 46×
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently stated claims under the ADA and Florida Human Rights Act, and that administrative remedies were properly exhausted, thus denying the defendant's motion to dismiss.
-
55 F.4th 863·
11th Cir.·
2022-12-14
·cited 31×
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and remand the case to state court, finding the district court acted within its broad discretion.
-
34 F.4th 1028·
11th Cir.·
2022-05-20
·cited 17×
The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' due process claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the claim was not so insubstantial or frivolous as to strip the court of its power to adjudicate.
-
967 F.3d 1190·
11th Cir.·
2020-07-30
·cited 11×
A request for a declaratory judgment that a federal statute does not provide immunity from damages does not create federal-question jurisdiction because the statute only provides an affirmative defense and does not create a private right of action.
-
56 F. Supp. 2d 1359·
M.D. Fla.·
1999-06-09
·cited 9×
The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that while some claims against individual officers were sufficiently pleaded, others against the City and official capacities were not.
-
995 F. Supp. 1471·
S.D. Fla.·
1997-12-12
·cited 6×
The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the plaintiff's ADA claim, but granted summary judgment for the defendant on the Title VII hostile work environment claim.
-
2014 WL 931010·
M.D. Fla.·
2023-02-27
·cited 5×
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for default judgment because the plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead the elements of her FDCPA and FCCPA claims, specifically regarding the nature of the debt and the applicability of the FDCPA to the defendant.
-
632 F. Supp. 2d 1147·
S.D. Fla.·
2008-12-19
·cited 4×
The court found that the defendants failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted patent claims were inherently anticipated or barred by prior sale. The court also found that the defendants stipulated to infringement.
-
2021 WL 3471627·
M.D. Fla.·
2022-02-10
·cited 3×
The court held that it would continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, denying the defendant's motion to dismiss.
-
917 F. Supp. 2d 1221·
M.D. Fla.·
2021-03-01
·cited 2×
A civil action arising under state worker's compensation laws cannot be removed to federal court and must be remanded.
-
670 F. Supp. 2d 1306·
M.D. Fla.·
2009-08-26
·cited 2×
The court held that a qualified covenant not to sue, coupled with the patentee's retention of rights related to inequitable conduct and the substantial similarity between asserted and unasserted patents, was insufficient to divest the court of subject matter jurisdiction over the
-
340 F. Supp. 2d 1343·
S.D. Fla.·
2004-10-12
·cited 2×
The court held that the federal securities fraud claim was time-barred and the RICO claim failed to allege a pattern of racketeering activity, leading to dismissal of all claims.
-
996 F.2d 797·
5th Cir.·
1993-08-02
·cited 2×
The district court did not abuse its discretion by remanding a state law election claim to state court after dismissing all federal claims.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-12-17
The court held that while some of the plaintiff's claims were properly dismissed for failure to state a claim or due to immunity, others, particularly those alleging excessive force after the plaintiff was subdued, could proceed.
-
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.
-
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.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-08-06
The court held that a counterclaim for breach of fiduciary duty, arising from different facts and substantially predominating over the FLSA claims, does not fall under the court's supplemental jurisdiction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-05-22
The court recommended granting Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, finding sufficient basis for liability and entitlement to injunctive relief and statutory damages.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-04-24
The court granted in part Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order, finding a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its trade secret misappropriation claims under the DTSA.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-09-13
A Florida developer and the county that approved its mixed-use development project disputed their contractual obligations regarding road improvements required for the project, with the developer claiming the county misinterpreted the agreement and improperly declared it in defaul
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-08-27
The court held that the defendants' default admitted well-pleaded allegations of trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition, warranting default judgment and a permanent injunction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-08-22
The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendations, denying the motion for default judgment, striking the entry of default, and dismissing the count for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-05-23
Removal was timely because the thirty-day period began when the amended complaint became operative, not when it was prematurely filed. A subsequent abandonment of federal claims does not divest the court of jurisdiction established at the time of removal.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-05-13
The court denied Costco's motion for leave to file a third-party complaint because it failed to establish a basis for federal jurisdiction over the proposed third-party defendant.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-04-14
The court held that permissive intervention is appropriate, but LEAD must provide evidence of its citizenship to establish federal jurisdiction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-09-30
The court held that while it has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, the complaint failed to state a claim against Defendant Forster individually due to insufficient factual allegations.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-06-30
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction after the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all federal claims, requiring remand to state court.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-12-11
The court held that an attorney's charging lien is premature until actual damages are adjudicated and that the language in the revocation of assignment did not satisfy the requirements for a charging lien.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-10-13
The court held that it would defer ruling on the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees, overruling the plaintiff's objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-01-27
The court held that the first-to-file rule applied, warranting transfer of the TCPA claim to the district where a prior, substantially similar action was filed.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-11-13
The court held that it lacked diversity jurisdiction due to the LLC's citizenship being tied to its members, and that while federal question jurisdiction existed for one claim, supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims was declined as they predominated.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-10-30
A federal district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.
-
543 F. Supp. 2d 1295·
M.D. Fla.·
2008-02-22
The court held that the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint was denied because the plaintiffs' allegations, accepted as true, stated valid claims for relief under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act and for breach of contract.