661 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 931 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-21
The court held that the defendant insurance agent was a citizen of Utah, not Florida, thus establishing complete diversity and denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-11-21
The court recommended granting Plaintiff's motion for default final judgment, finding sufficient basis in the pleadings for fraud and awarding damages.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-21
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a breach of contract claim against FEMA because the state court where the suit was initially filed also lacked jurisdiction, due to exclusive federal jurisdiction provided by statute.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-14
The court held that the pro se plaintiff's complaint was due to be stricken for failing to comply with federal and local rules regarding jurisdiction, pleading, and formatting.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-14
The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold, requiring remand.
-
The court held that transfer to the Southern District of Florida is appropriate for the convenience of parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-11-04
The court held that the plaintiff's claims are time-barred because the current lawsuit was filed outside the statutory limitations period, and the prior dismissal, though without prejudice, was effectively with prejudice due to the statute of limitations.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-04
The court held that most of the plaintiff's claims failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and the remaining claim fell below the jurisdictional threshold.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to sufficiently establish the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction based on the provided evidence.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, as the defendant's own attorney's fees incurred in litigating the fee dispute could not be counted towards the amount in controversy from the plaintiff's perspective. Therefore,
-
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was timely because the thirty-day clock did not begin until the defendant received an amended pleading or other paper from which removability could be ascertained, which was after the initial complaint.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-10-15
The court recommends dismissal of the action without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to state a claim and did not comply with court orders regarding filing fees and amended complaints.
-
The court held that a plaintiff must sufficiently allege citizenship of all parties to establish diversity jurisdiction, and allegations based on information and belief are insufficient.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's motion to remand is granted because the amount in controversy does not meet the federal subject matter jurisdiction threshold.
-
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was insufficient to establish federal diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy was not proven to exceed $75,000.
-
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
-
11th Cir.·
2025-09-12
A voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a) is invalid if it does not dismiss the entire action, and a partial summary judgment order is not final without Rule 54(b) certification, meaning pending claims prevent appellate jurisdiction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-09-03
The court held that the defendant's pattern of willful, bad faith, and dilatory behavior, culminating in his failure to appear at a scheduled pretrial conference, warranted default judgment on the plaintiff's claims and dismissal of the counterclaim.
-
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.
-
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was untimely because the initial pleading did not establish federal jurisdiction and subsequent documents did not unambiguously establish removability within the statutory time limits.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-09-02
The court recommended dismissal of the complaint without prejudice because it lacked federal question jurisdiction, was subject to abstention doctrines, and claims were barred by judicial and litigation immunities.
-
The court held that it must remand the case to state court because the addition of a non-diverse defendant destroyed subject matter jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-08-21
A complaint that fails to separate claims, incorporates all prior allegations into each count, or includes irrelevant facts constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading and must be stricken.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately allege diversity jurisdiction because the pleadings did not properly state the citizenship of the defendant LLC and its members.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to adequately establish diversity jurisdiction by only showing the plaintiff's member's residence, not domicile.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-08-08
The court denied defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, finding that the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence and that the continuing tort doctrine was properly applied.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction because the defendant did not adequately plead the citizenship of one of the parties and did not provide sufficient evidence to meet the amount in controversy requirement.
-
The court held that the plaintiff did not fraudulently join the roofer, as there was a possibility of stating a cause of action against him and the joinder satisfied permissive joinder standards under Rule 20.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to establish diversity jurisdiction by not properly proving its principal place of business, requiring remand.
-
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to properly allege diversity of citizenship and deposit the disputed funds into the court registry.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-07-23
Nicolas Manzini, a former lawyer, sued Miccosukee Tribe leaders Talbert Cypress and Lucas Osceola in federal court alleging they violated the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and defrauded casino patrons by manipulating cash-out kiosks to avoid refunding coin change. The court found
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-07-18
The court held that the defendant's breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims were sufficiently pleaded, but dismissed the separate count for attorney's fees.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-07-15
Defendants are not entitled to attorney's fees because they did not prevail on a significant issue in the litigation, as the case was dismissed for the plaintiff's failure to serve process.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-07-09
A defendant does not waive its right to remove a case to federal court by participating in discovery, including noticing and taking a deposition, as this action does not clearly and unequivocally indicate an intent to litigate the merits in state court.
-
This is a venue determination case in which the district court transferred a diversity action from the Eastern District of California to the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff failed to establish that California was a proper venue for his claims against a Virginia reside
-
The court held that a state-law breach-of-contract claim involving whether a party acted as an unregistered broker-dealer does not present a substantial federal question sufficient for federal-question jurisdiction under the Grable test.
-
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to dismiss the Amended Complaint as a shotgun pleading and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-07-07
The court held that the parties' pleadings failed to adequately allege the citizenship of various parties, thus failing to establish diversity jurisdiction.
-
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.
-
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was deficient in establishing diversity jurisdiction and in complying with procedural requirements for removal.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-20
The Court holds that the plaintiff's complaint constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading and strikes it, giving the plaintiff an opportunity to replead.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-06-16
The court granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a non-diverse party, finding that the Hensgens factors weighed in favor of joinder, and consequently remanded the case to state court due to lack of diversity jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-13
The court recommended denying the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the amended complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to establish the amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction and ordered the defendant to supplement its notice of removal.
-
The court held that State Farm provided sufficient evidence to establish the amount in controversy for removal, but must provide further evidence regarding the plaintiff's citizenship.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-03
The court held that the plaintiff's testimony regarding track-like footprints in the water, combined with the circumstances, created a genuine issue of material fact regarding the defendant's constructive notice of the dangerous condition, thus precluding summary judgment.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint fails to establish subject-matter jurisdiction due to insufficient allegations of diversity of citizenship.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-05-30
State Farm and Rhonda Looper are indispensable parties who must be joined in this action, while Bobbi Jo Shireman, Jonathan Villalobos, and Sammy Hernandez are not indispensable.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-05-30
The court held that Lakeshore Technical College is a citizen of Wisconsin, not an arm of the State, and therefore diversity jurisdiction exists; the court also held that the parties' forum-selection clause is enforceable and requires transfer of the case.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-05-27
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff's claims were all state-law based and there was no complete diversity between the parties.