-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-09-18
The court held that the defendant failed to adequately plead diversity of citizenship, thus lacking subject matter jurisdiction for removal.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-05-22
The court held that a second removal on the same grounds as a prior denied removal is barred, and even if a new ground was presented, it was untimely.
-
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.·
2020-03-12
The court held that the plaintiff should be permitted to amend the complaint to add a nondiverse defendant, as the joinder was not fraudulent.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-02-28
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over claims against defendant Yates because he is a citizen of Florida, destroying complete diversity, and he is a dispensable party.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-02-28
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was deficient in alleging subject-matter jurisdiction and constituted a shotgun pleading, warranting its dismissal.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-02-21
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish complete diversity of citizenship, and therefore, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-01-23
The court held that neither the defendant's notice of removal nor the plaintiff's amended complaint sufficiently alleged federal subject matter jurisdiction, specifically diversity jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-09-10
The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, remanding the case because the defendant failed to establish diversity jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-09-06
The court found that diversity jurisdiction exists because the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy likely exceeds $75,000.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-09-03
The court held that Plaintiff's motion to amend to add a non-diverse defendant should be granted, and the case should be remanded to state court because diversity jurisdiction would be destroyed.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-08-16
The court held that good cause existed to set aside the clerk's entry of default because the defendants' delay was not culpable, the plaintiffs would not be prejudiced, and the defendants presented a potentially meritorious defense.
-
967 F.2d 1214·
8th Cir.·
1992-06-23
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the parties were not diverse in citizenship.
-
1992 WL 110958·
S.D. Fla.·
1992-05-13
A defendant's notice of removal can supply missing jurisdictional facts not present in the plaintiff's complaint, provided those facts are not contradicted.
-
646 F. Supp. 216·
S.D. Fla.·
1986-10-23
Removal to federal court was improper because diversity jurisdiction was not established at the time the complaint was filed, and no federal question was presented.
-
592 F. Supp. 25·
M.D. Fla.·
1984-08-24
The court held that the plaintiff, a member of the military, retained his Florida domicile despite residing in Georgia for a period, thus lacking the diversity of citizenship required for federal jurisdiction.