-
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.
-
930 F. Supp. 606·
S.D. Fla.·
1996-06-21
·cited 19×
The court held that while federal claims for hostile work environment survive a motion to dismiss, a more definite statement is required regarding the effect of the harassment and its frequency; state law tort claims are dismissed without prejudice.
-
90 F. Supp. 2d 1344·
S.D. Fla.·
2000-03-31
·cited 5×
A high-speed police pursuit, without more, does not violate substantive due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and when the sole federal claim is dismissed, remaining state law claims should be remanded.
-
932 F. Supp. 1462·
S.D. Fla.·
1996-07-03
·cited 4×
The court held that claims for punitive damages under the ADEA, ADA, and FCRA do not survive the death of the plaintiff, and common law claims are dismissed without prejudice for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.
-
896 F. Supp. 1163·
N.D. Fla.·
1995-07-17
·cited 4×
The court held that it would exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law age discrimination claim because it does not present novel or complex issues of state law and does not substantially predominate over the federal ADEA claim.
-
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.
-
174 F. Supp. 2d 1272·
M.D. Fla.·
2001-11-09
·cited 3×
The court held that an employee must be eligible for FMLA benefits to bring a retaliation claim under the FMLA, and that the plaintiff's Title VII claim was untimely.
-
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.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-08-27
The court held that a pro se litigant's inability to file electronically does not provide grounds for remand, and federal question jurisdiction exists when a complaint clearly alleges violations of federal law.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-04-19
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act because the fellowship program fee was not an illegal kickback, as participation in the program was voluntary and not a condition of employment.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-10-18
The court held that the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support federal claims against the Sheriff's Office and individual deputies under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and therefore dismissed these claims.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-08-16
The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims were dismissed.
-
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.·
2023-04-14
The court held that it has discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claim has been dismissed, and in this case, judicial economy and convenience favored dismissal.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-06-22
The court held that it would decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after federal claims were removed and then amended out of the complaint.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-04-20
The court held that it may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all federal claims are dismissed, and in this case, it was appropriate to do so.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-02-10
The court granted the motion to dismiss the pendant state claim, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after the federal claims were settled.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-02-07
The court held that it has discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims are dismissed, and in this case, it properly exercised that discretion to remand the case.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-02-07
The court held that it lacked supplemental jurisdiction over the permissive counterclaim because it did not arise from a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claims, and alternatively, would decline to exercise jurisdiction as it would substantially predominate over
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-01-19
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the statutory notice requirement for their Title II claim against LKJ, warranting dismissal, and therefore declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.
-
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.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-05-18
The court held that it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all claims over which it had original jurisdiction have been dismissed, especially at an early stage of litigation.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-04-20
The court held that it would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and remanded the case to state court.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-04-13
The court held that it would decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after federal claims were voluntarily dismissed.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-03-11
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for a Fourth Amendment violation or a substantive due process violation, and therefore declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-03-10
A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims are dismissed pretrial, and the court chooses to do so.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-08-12
The court affirmed the magistrate judge's recommendation to award attorney's fees and costs, finding the hourly rates and hours expended by plaintiff's counsel to be reasonable, and that the offers of judgment did not include attorney's fees and costs.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-04-15
Prosecutors are absolutely immune from civil rights claims arising from their prosecutorial functions, including actions related to bail.
-
354 F. Supp. 2d 1330·
S.D. Fla.·
2005-01-18
The court held that the plaintiff's claim under Fla. Stat. § 670.204 was completely preempted by federal law (Regulation J), making removal proper, and that supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims was appropriate.
-
37 F. Supp. 2d 1351·
M.D. Fla.·
1999-03-03
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state claims for violations of substantive and procedural due process rights, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.