661 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 931 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
The court held that the federal court erred in not remanding the case to state court because the separable controversy lacked complete diversity of citizenship.
-
The court held that the writings constituted a valid and enforceable contract obligating the buyer to pay a fixed price for oil, and that this contract was not barred by the statute of frauds under either New York or New Mexico law.
-
The court held that the district judge had the authority to award attorney's fees to the plaintiffs against the assets of the corporations, as the suit protected corporate assets and benefited the corporations.
-
The court held that the realignment of the defendant son as a party plaintiff was not justified, as a genuine controversy existed between the plaintiff and her son, thus preserving diversity jurisdiction.
-
Federal court-appointed receivers can remove a civil action from state to federal court on the ground of diversity of citizenship under the general provisions of the Judicial Code.
-
The court held that stockholders who were unaware of and did not authorize their inclusion as plaintiffs in a suit could not be deemed to have ratified their joinder by silence, especially when their testimony was credible.
-
An insurer subrogated to an insured's rights cannot recover indemnity from a third party where the insured's own primary negligence caused the injury for which the insured was held liable.
-
2018 WL 10140148·
N.D. Fla.·
2024-10-10
·cited 1×
The court recommended dismissal of the case without prejudice because the pro se plaintiff failed to comply with court orders to file a proper complaint and pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis.
-
984 F. Supp. 2d 637·
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-03
·cited 1×
Venue was improper in the Northern District of Texas because the plaintiff failed to establish that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred there; the case is transferred to the Middle District of Florida.
-
-
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.
-
664 F. Supp. 2d 1224·
M.D. Fla.·
2009-10-07
·cited 1×
A forum selection clause requiring venue in a specific county does not preclude litigation in the federal court encompassing that county, and certain fraud and securities claims were sufficiently pled to survive a motion to dismiss.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden to establish federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) because it did not demonstrate that the proposed class had more than 100 members.
-
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to strike defenses and motion to compel exceeding deposition limits, and granted in part defendant's motion for a protective order and stay of discovery.
-
846 F. Supp. 978·
M.D. Fla.·
1994-03-16
·cited 1×
The court confirmed the arbitration award, denied the motion to vacate, and denied the motion for attorneys' fees without prejudice, allowing for an evidentiary hearing.
-
841 F. Supp. 391·
M.D. Fla.·
1993-12-10
·cited 1×
The court held that Plaintiffs were not entitled to the protections of the Automobile Dealers' Day in Court Act because they lacked a written franchise agreement with the defendants. Furthermore, any claims related to the Braun dealership were vested in the court-appointed receiv
-
999 F.2d 549·
D.C. Cir.·
1993-07-27
·cited 1×
The court held that evidence of other SAG failures was admissible and jury instructions on product liability were proper, but reversed a damages award for loss of consortium and certified a question regarding the District of Columbia's liability for the rescue effort.
-
996 F.2d 928·
7th Cir.·
1993-06-24
·cited 1×
A partially subrogated insurer, whose joinder would destroy diversity jurisdiction, is not an indispensable party and can be dismissed.
-
983 F.2d 485·
3d Cir.·
1992-12-28
·cited 1×
The district court properly dismissed the petition to compel arbitration as time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and the appeal is not moot.
-
977 F.2d 1464·
D.C. Cir.·
1992-10-20
·cited 1×
The court held that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the case as a sanction for attorney misconduct and erred in finding a lack of diversity jurisdiction based on a dissolved corporation's citizenship.
-
976 F.2d 912·
4th Cir.·
1992-10-06
·cited 1×
The court held that the district court had proper subject matter jurisdiction and did not err in finding that the change of beneficiaries on the life insurance policies was the product of undue influence, thus invalidating the changes.
-
777 F. Supp. 1554·
M.D. Fla.·
1991-10-17
·cited 1×
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint, as pled, failed to establish that the insurance benefits were not provided under an employee benefit plan, and therefore the causes of action were preempted by ERISA.
-
The court held that the plaintiffs' separate wage claims, even when reduced to a single judgment, could not be aggregated to meet the federal jurisdictional minimum amount because the underlying causes of action were separate and distinct.
-
896 F.2d 136·
5th Cir.·
1990-03-15
·cited 1×
A subcontractor is not an indispensable party when the prime contractor asserts the subcontractor's damages as part of its own claim, especially when state law permits such pass-through claims and no statute grants the subcontractor direct rights against the owner.
-
892 F.2d 778·
9th Cir.·
1989-12-15
·cited 1×
The court held that the CPUC could not invoke the attorney work product privilege under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) as it was not a party to the litigation, and that California's deliberative process and official information privileges did not apply to the requested documents.
-
877 F.2d 1003·
D.C. Cir.·
1989-06-16
·cited 1×
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia has personal jurisdiction over a foreign patent holder under 35 U.S.C. § 293 in a suit concerning the ownership of United States patents. The prior narrow interpretation of the statute, limiting its application to disp
-
714 F. Supp. 1180·
M.D. Fla.·
1989-06-06
·cited 1×
The court held that the 10b-5 claim was time-barred, but the civil RICO, Florida RICO, and common law claims could proceed.
-
844 F.2d 1050·
3d Cir.·
1988-04-26
·cited 1×
The court held that the developer was not an indispensable party to the contractor's suit to enforce a joint and several arbitration award against the bank, and that the contractor's motion to intervene, while potentially lacking grounds for intervention as of right, should not h
-
682 F. Supp. 1191·
M.D. Fla.·
1988-03-31
·cited 1×
The court held that the defendant cruise line was estopped from asserting the passage contract's one-year limitation period for filing suit due to its misrepresentations, and that the defendant was negligent in maintaining the dance floor, proximately causing the plaintiff's inju
-
601 F. Supp. 457·
S.D. Fla.·
1984-12-27
·cited 1×
The court held that it had proper subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the defendant and that the plaintiff had fulfilled its obligations under the salvage contract.
-
The court held that diversity jurisdiction, when properly pleaded, allows a federal court to adjudicate state law claims, rendering the issue of pendent jurisdiction moot. However, specific federal claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim or lack of a private right of a
-
Florida's Insurance Commissioner sought to enjoin a tender offer under the Florida Insurance Holding Company Act, but the federal district court held that the Williams Act preempts the Florida Act because the state law's requirement for pre-commencement approval and a sixty-day f
-
500 F. Supp. 491·
S.D. Fla.·
1980-09-30
·cited 1×
The court held that the brokerage firm (SHS) acted properly in liquidating the customer's (LMI) commodity futures positions due to margin deficiencies, and that the customer's alter ego claim was not supported.
-
559 F.2d 1027·
5th Cir.·
1977-09-23
·cited 1×
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action for failure to meet the jurisdictional amount, as it was not legally certain that less than $10,000 was recoverable.
-
11th Cir.·
2026-06-04
Federal courts may dismiss a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the frivolous claim exception where allegations are wholly insubstantial and frivolous with no plausible foundation, even when a factual attack on jurisdiction is presented. Shaikh's allegations that
-
S.D. Fla.·
2026-02-06
Great West Casualty Company sought to deposit $2 million in policy limits into federal court through an interpleader action against competing claimants from a fatal car accident, invoking a recent Florida statute providing insurers a safe harbor from bad faith lawsuits if they fi
-
S.D. Fla.·
2026-01-26
The court granted the motions to dismiss, finding the federal takings claim failed for not alleging public use and dismissing state law claims for lack of jurisdiction.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2026-01-16
The court held that the plaintiff's motion to remand should be denied because the amount in controversy likely exceeds $75,000 and the "forum defendant rule" does not bar removal when the forum defendant has not been properly served prior to removal.
-
The court held that the defendant's removal of the case was untimely because the plaintiff's residency in Florida was ascertainable from the initial complaint and attachments, triggering the 30-day removal period at that time. The court denied attorney's fees for the untimely rem
-
The court held that the defendant failed to establish the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction based on the evidence provided.
-
The court held that because the plaintiff and defendants shared citizenship in the same states, complete diversity was lacking, requiring remand to state court.
-
The court held that plaintiffs' complaint must be dismissed without prejudice because it failed to properly allege diversity of citizenship, a prerequisite for federal subject matter jurisdiction.
-
The court held that an amended complaint must be dismissed without leave to amend because the plaintiff, a limited liability company, failed to properly allege the citizenship of its members, thus failing to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-12-15
The court held that the fraud and securities fraud claims should be dismissed for failure to meet pleading standards, but the breach of contract claim should proceed.
-
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for default judgment because the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to establish subject matter jurisdiction, specifically regarding the amount in controversy.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-12-04
The court held that venue was improper in the Southern District of Florida and transferred the case to the Middle District of Florida.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-12-04
The court held that venue was improper in the Southern District of Florida and transferred the case to the Middle District of Florida.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-12-03
The court held that the removing defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold for diversity jurisdiction.
-
The court granted the motion to remand because the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving complete diversity of citizenship.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold, requiring remand to state court.