Complete Diversity Of Citizenship

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

• Mrs. Georgia Ann Toms v. Country Quality Meats, Inc.
  610 F.2d 313· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-24 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court erred in finding Country Quality Meats, Inc.'s principal place of business was Georgia, and that plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their complaint to properly allege jurisdiction.
• AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Hillman
  796 F.2d 770· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-13 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the substitution of USF&G for Aetna did not cure the lack of diversity jurisdiction because the original plaintiff lacked standing, rendering the amendment a new lawsuit, and subsequent events do not create jurisdiction.
• Local Union 598 v. J.A. Jones Constr. Co.
  846 F.2d 1213· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Washington state prevailing wage statute, which mandates employer contributions to employee benefit plans, is preempted by Section 514(a) of ERISA because it 'relates to' and 'purports to regulate' such plans.
• Clarence E. Morris, Inc. v. Vitek
  412 F.2d 1174· 9th Cir.· 1969-06-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that federal jurisdiction was lacking because complete diversity of citizenship did not exist between the plaintiff and all named defendants, and the claims were not separate and independent for removal purposes.
• Matchett v. Wold
  818 F.2d 574· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's dismissal for lack of diversity jurisdiction was premature because it could not determine from the record whether the joinder of additional defendants destroyed diversity.
• Sweeney v. Westvaco Co.
  926 F.2d 29· 1st Cir.· 1991-02-12 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the defendant waived its federal labor law pre-emption defense by raising it too late, and that the diversity jurisdiction issue could be resolved by dismissing a nondiverse defendant.
• Nieter v. Holiday CVS, L.L.C.
  2018 WL 3761045· M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-20 ·cited 6×
  A proposal for settlement, standing alone, does not establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction.
• Nat'l Ass'n OF Realtors v. Nat'l Real Est. Ass'n, Inc.
  894 F.2d 937· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the majority's analytical approach to diversity jurisdiction, despite pragmatic concerns, is persuasive and correct.
• Busalacchi v. Guhl
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendants failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus diversity jurisdiction was lacking.
• Leon v. First Liberty Ins.
  308 F. Supp. 2d 236· M.D. Fla.· 2012-11-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant met its burden to establish diversity jurisdiction, as the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 and complete diversity of citizenship existed.
• Am's. Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns OF Abilene, L.P.
  980 F.2d 1072· 7th Cir.· 1992-11-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the parties failed to establish complete diversity of citizenship, requiring dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
• Jones v. Harold W. Griffith, M.D.
  870 F.2d 1363· 7th Cir.· 1989-03-30 ·cited 2×
  A federal district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to issue preliminary determinations under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act because such determinations are advisory opinions and do not constitute a case or controversy ripe for federal adjudication.
• Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. Pedrogos
  2016 WL 3746538· M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-04 ·cited 1×
  The court held that an insurance company may interplead disputed policy proceeds among claimants, but the funds must be deposited into the court registry, not a private trust account.
• 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.
• Bagdon v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.
  916 F.2d 379· 7th Cir.· 1990-10-17 ·cited 1×
  A claim that a majority shareholder's competition injured the corporation is a derivative claim, requiring the corporation to be joined as a party, which destroys diversity jurisdiction.
• 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.
• Keiri Patricia Castillo Nunez v. Target Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-09
  The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was insufficient to establish federal diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy was not adequately demonstrated.
• Youngblood v. Total Renal Care, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-17
  The court held that the defendant failed to sufficiently demonstrate the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction.
• Zimmerman v. Forkins
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-13
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish diversity jurisdiction, thus the case must be remanded to state court.
• 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.
• Cadence Equip. Fin. v. Victoria Edward Spa & Wellness Ctr., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-31
  The court denied the motion for default judgment because the plaintiff failed to establish the court's jurisdiction over the parties and claims.
• Kureti v. Coast Prof'l, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-19
  The court held that a private debt collector cannot violate due process rights and that diversity jurisdiction was not properly established due to lack of complete diversity. The court also found a forum selection clause in loan documents to be enforceable, requiring dismissal of
• eFraud Servs., Inc. v. SGS Ventures LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-29
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to properly allege federal subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity.
• Engels v. Gantlett
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-15
  The defendant failed to meet her burden of establishing federal subject-matter jurisdiction, requiring her to supplement the notice of removal.
• M&M Private Lending Grp., LLC v. Jbba Holdings, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-07-15
  The court held that the defendants failed to establish federal jurisdiction, and therefore the case should be remanded to state court.
• Storey v. Sam's E., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-14
  The defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing federal subject-matter jurisdiction through diversity, requiring supplementation of its removal notice.
• Conley v. Vacanti
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-06-30
  The court held that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the state law claims after dismissing the federal copyright claim, and therefore dismisses the state law claims without prejudice.
• Potter v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-05
  The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was insufficient because it failed to adequately establish the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction.
• Kohrig v. Pavilion at Healthpark LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-04
  The court held that the defendants failed to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity.
• 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.
• Rosh Chodesh II Ltd. P'ship v. Wimpfheimer
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-02-04
  The court held that the Plaintiffs' RICO claims are barred by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) because the alleged fraudulent conduct was actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities, and therefore, the court lacks federal question jurisdiction.
• 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.
• Rouzard v. U-Haul Int'l, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-08
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction, warranting dismissal with leave to amend.
• Mesa Underwriters Specialty Ins. Co. v. Performance Custom Carts & Tires LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-16
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to adequately allege subject matter jurisdiction, specifically diversity jurisdiction, and therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
• DSSBW, LLC v. Great Lakes Ins. SE
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-28
  The court held that removal was timely because the initial complaint did not establish complete diversity, and the subsequent Rule 7.1 disclosure clarified diversity, making the removal notice timely.
• Ross v. iHeartMedia, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-22
  Pro se plaintiff Michael Ross filed a defamation action against iHeartMedia, Inc. in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because both parties were citizens of Texas, destroying
• Rothschild v. Pfizer Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-12
  The court recommended dismissal of the second amended complaint because it remained deficient in multiple respects, including improper pleading, failure to establish subject-matter jurisdiction, and inclusion of impermissible class action allegations.
• Joseph v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-08
  The court recommended denial of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissal of the complaint without prejudice, granting leave to amend.
• Aguila v. Rqm+ LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-07-08
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction was properly established, and therefore, the motion to remand is denied.
• Bluewave Commc'n Servs., Inc v. PMRG Fiber Corp
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-24
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction by not providing sufficient evidence of the plaintiff's principal place of business, necessitating remand.
• Michael v. Nat'l Specialty Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-04
  The court held that the defendant failed to sufficiently establish the amount in controversy for removal based on diversity jurisdiction.
• More Auto. Prods., Inc. v. Dollar Rent A Car, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-05-17
  The court held that a plaintiff's conclusory estimation of damages is insufficient to establish federal diversity jurisdiction.
• Wescott v. Ramirez Sing
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-01-25
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish diversity jurisdiction and ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, or improper venue.
• Rose v. The Phoenix Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-10-13
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the lack of complete diversity between the plaintiff and a defendant, requiring remand to state court.
• Tesorero v. Indep. Specialty Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-08-15
  The court held that a defendant's removal of a case is timely if filed within 30 days of receiving an 'other paper' from which removability can be ascertained, even if the defendant had prior knowledge of facts suggesting removability before the initial pleading was filed.
• Valdes v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-07-05
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction because it did not adequately plead the plaintiffs' citizenship.
• Valencia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-05-04
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because complete diversity of citizenship was absent, requiring remand.
• Saunders v. Breit MF Preserve at Lakeland, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-02-28
  The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction due to a lack of complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and dismissed the case without prejudice.
• Beres v. Daily Journal Corp.
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-11-23
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because one plaintiff was a U.S. citizen domiciled abroad, thus not a citizen of a state for diversity purposes.