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 amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction is determined by the face value of the plaintiff's claimed damages, including medical bills before adjustments or collateral source payments, and potential non-economic damages.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-09-11
The court recommended denying the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing her complaint without prejudice, with leave to amend, due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to comply with pleading rules.
-
The court held that an amended complaint asserting a new claim does not constitute the commencement of a new action for removal purposes, and therefore, removal was untimely.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-09-06
The court recommended granting in part Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, awarding a specific amount for outstanding balance and interest, and requiring further briefing for attorney fees and costs.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-09-06
The court held that the attempted removal was untimely and barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and that a counterclaim cannot serve as a basis for removal. The court granted the motion to remand and imposed restrictions on future filings.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-08-30
The court held that a state-law declaratory judgment action concerning an insurance policy dispute was properly removed to federal court and that remand was not required, as the amount in controversy met the diversity jurisdiction threshold.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-08-30
The court denied the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the complaint without prejudice because it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-08-30
The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case, necessitating its remand to state court.
-
The court held that the Fire Report did not unequivocally establish federal jurisdiction, making the removal timely.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold for diversity jurisdiction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-08-23
The Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Final Judgment because the Defendant failed to respond and the Plaintiffs adequately established jurisdiction and stated a claim for breach of contract.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-08-21
The court recommended denying Defendant W. McNae's motion for attorney's fees and costs, finding he was not a prevailing party and that awarding costs would be premature and unjust. The court also recommended granting plaintiffs' motion to bifurcate the determination of attorney'
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-08-21
The court recommended denying the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing her amended complaint with prejudice due to insufficient factual allegations and failure to establish indigency.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-08-19
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, or the First, Fourth, and Sixth Amendments, and recommended dismissal with leave to amend.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-08-15
The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 threshold for diversity jurisdiction.
-
In this diversity action for fraud and breach of contract, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that the defendants' alleged intentional drafting of fraudulent checks in Florida satisfied Florida's tortious act statute. The
-
The court recommended granting the plaintiff's motion for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest but denying attorneys' fees without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to resubmit a revised request limited to fees for the civil theft claim.
-
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.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-08-08
The court recommended denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice because it failed to state a viable claim or establish federal jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the defendant's removal of the case was untimely because the case was removable upon filing, and the defendant had knowledge of the removability requirements at that time.
-
109 F.4th 1367·
11th Cir.·
2024-08-01
The court held that the phrase 'for financial institutions' in the insurance policy's definition of covered services modifies all preceding terms in the list, including 'accounting,' thus excluding coverage for accounting services provided to non-financial institutions.
-
The court held that a defendant's removal of a case based on diversity jurisdiction is untimely if filed more than one year after the action's commencement, absent plaintiff's bad faith.
-
The court held that a pro se plaintiff's amended complaint must be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not meet the $75,000 threshold for diversity jurisdiction, and further amendment would be futile.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, and therefore, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-07-17
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add a non-diverse party and denied the motion to remand, finding the request was made too late and lacked good cause.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-07-17
The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims because the § 1983 claim failed as the defendant was a private entity, and the remaining state law claims lacked diversity jurisdiction as both parties were Florida citizens.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-07-09
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish the amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction, granting the motion to dismiss without prejudice.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-07-08
The court held that diversity jurisdiction was properly established, and therefore, the motion to remand is denied.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-06-18
The court held that Count II of the complaint was unripe due to the probate exception and dismissed it without prejudice, while denying the motion to dismiss the remaining counts.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional minimum, requiring remand to state court.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-06-14
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a claim due to fundamental pleading deficiencies regarding subject-matter jurisdiction and clarity of the claim type.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-06-13
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case, as the claims were either barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine or failed to state a federal question, and equitable relief was foreclosed by prior state court proceedings.
-
Retailer-defendants are not fraudulently joined when a state court has dismissed claims against them on preemption grounds if the dismissal is appealable and the preemption issue remains subject to reasonable legal debate.
-
Retailer-defendants are not fraudulently joined when a state court dismissal on preemption grounds remains appealable and the preemption issue presents reasonable legal debate.
-
Retailer-defendants are not fraudulently joined when a state court has dismissed claims against them on preemption grounds but the preemption issue remains subject to reasonable legal debate and appellate review.
-
The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the amended complaint as frivolous and lacking jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-05-06
The court granted the motion to compel depositions, ordering the parties to reschedule them promptly, but denied the request for attorney's fees.
-
The court held that the defendant sufficiently established the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence, thus denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
-
The court held that the defendant's motion to dismiss should be denied because the plaintiff sufficiently stated claims for relief and the court had subject-matter jurisdiction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-04-29
The court granted in part and denied in part GM Law's motion in limine, and granted Plaintiffs' motion in limine, ruling on various evidentiary issues for the upcoming trial.
-
The court held that the amended complaint failed to state a claim for breach of contract or declaratory relief because the plaintiff did not adequately plead facts showing a covered loss under the insurance policy.
-
The court held that while some plaintiffs' claims met the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction, one plaintiff's claims did not, leading to dismissal of that plaintiff's case.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-04-16
Cardinal Point, LLC and its members sold their healthcare reinsurance distribution business to EPIC Holdings in 2019 under an Asset Purchase Agreement with an earnout structure, but the business significantly underperformed projections and EPIC stopped operations and terminated t
-
The court held that the defendant's removal was timely because service of process was defective under Florida law, meaning the 30-day removal clock had not begun to run. However, the court could not determine subject matter jurisdiction due to inadequate allegations of the partie
-
The Florida civil cover sheet, by itself, is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction; defendants must provide additional evidence beyond the cover sheet and generic complaint allegations to meet their burden of proof for removal.
-
The Florida civil cover sheet, by itself, is generally insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction, but it can be considered as some evidence when combined with other supporting facts.
-
The Florida civil cover sheet, by itself, is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction; defendants must provide additional evidence beyond the cover sheet and generic complaint allegations to meet their burden of proof for removal.
-
The Florida civil cover sheet, by itself, is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction; defendants must provide additional evidence beyond generic allegations and the cover sheet.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-03-22
The court denied the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to establish subject-matter jurisdiction and filed a shotgun pleading.
-
A conclusory demand in a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation, without specific details or supporting documents, is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction.