661 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 931 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-03-18
The court held that removal was improper because the plaintiff's state-law eviction complaint did not present a federal question, and a defendant's counterclaim cannot establish federal question jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the defendant met its burden to establish the jurisdictional amount for removal, thus denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-02-20
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and lacked proper subject matter jurisdiction, but granted leave to amend.
-
A defendant does not waive its right to remove a case to federal court by taking actions in state court before the basis for removal, such as complete diversity and sufficient amount in controversy, exists.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-02-12
A federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a state law paternity and child support action, even if the defendant asserts federal law defenses or counterclaims.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-02-08
The court held that the defendants failed to demonstrate fraudulent joinder of the Florida resident defendant, thus diversity jurisdiction was lacking and the case must be remanded.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-02-07
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the defendants due to insufficient factual allegations regarding jurisdiction and supervisory liability.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-01-11
A defendant's counterclaim cannot establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction, and failure to plead party citizenship means jurisdiction is lacking.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-12-28
Contractual interest, if integral to the contract and not merely a result of delay, can be included to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction.
-
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to allege the citizenship of the parties or the amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish domicile in Florida, thus destroying diversity jurisdiction and requiring remand to state court.
-
The court held that the Notice of Removal was insufficient to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction due to inadequate pleading of party citizenship.
-
The court held that removal was improper due to a lack of complete diversity, as a non-diverse party was not fraudulently joined.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-12-07
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after receiving an email that clearly indicated the case was removable, and therefore granted the motion to remand.
-
The court held that the defendants met their burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-11-15
The court ordered the pro se plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and to amend the complaint to cure deficiencies, while also denying his premature summary judgment motion.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-11-13
The court granted a non-party subcontractor's motion to intervene as of right in a general contractor's lawsuit against a surety, finding that the intervenor met the requirements for intervention and that supplemental jurisdiction over its counterclaims was proper despite destroy
-
The court held that the defendant failed to sufficiently allege the citizenship of the parties to establish diversity jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction because it did not demonstrate the citizenship of all members of the plaintiff LLC.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-11-02
The court held that the plaintiff's motion to remand should be granted because the defendant store manager was not fraudulently joined, as there was a possibility of establishing a cause of action against her under Florida law.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-10-26
A social media platform is immune from liability for claims arising from user-generated content under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, even if the content involves a minor being solicited for sexual activity.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-10-17
A defendant's time to remove a case to federal court is triggered by formal service of process, not by informal receipt of the complaint.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-10-04
The court held that the case must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint failed to establish federal question or diversity jurisdiction and alleged both parties were citizens of Florida.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-10-04
The court granted the plaintiff's motion to join additional defendants and remand the case to state court, finding that joinder was appropriate under the Hensgens factors and would not be considered fraudulent.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-09-29
The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead that the defendants acted as unregistered brokers or dealers under the Exchange Act, and thus Count IV is dismissed with prejudice. Remaining state law claims are dismissed without prejudice due to lack of federal quest
-
The court held that the defendants failed to establish diversity jurisdiction, and therefore the case must be remanded to state court.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-09-15
The court held that the auto and employee exclusions in the insurance policies preclude coverage, and therefore the insurers have no duty to defend or indemnify the insured.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-09-15
The court granted the Plaintiff's motion for default final judgment, awarding damages, costs, and attorney's fees due to the Defendant's failure to appear or defend the action.
-
A post-removal settlement offer, unsupported by specific damages information, does not negate the amount in controversy established at the time of removal.
-
The court held that boilerplate objections are without merit and that a defendant cannot unilaterally stay discovery based on an alleged need for trade secret identification without filing a proper motion.
-
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to reconsider its prior order remanding the case to state court, as such orders are generally unreviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).
-
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion for default judgment, awarding limited damages for breach of contract and granting declaratory relief regarding trademark ownership.
-
The court held that diversity jurisdiction did not exist because the plaintiff and one of the defendants are citizens of Florida, requiring remand to state court.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-08-16
The court held that removal was improper because the plaintiff's state law claim did not present a federal question, and therefore the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-08-15
The court held that the defendant failed to meet the heavy burden of proving fraudulent joinder, thus the forum defendant rule applied and the case must be remanded.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-08-15
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint failed to allege a basis for federal jurisdiction or sufficient facts for diversity jurisdiction.
-
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.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-08-11
The court granted the defendant's motion to transfer the case to the Middle District of Florida, finding it to be a proper and more convenient forum.
-
The court held that a limited partnership's citizenship for diversity purposes includes all its partners, and the defendant failed to establish diversity by only providing general partner citizenship.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2023-07-29
The court held that Counts I and II (breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith) state plausible claims, but Count III (wrongful termination) and Count IV (unjust enrichment) are dismissed.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-07-28
The court held that the pro se plaintiff must file an amended complaint to clarify the basis of the court's subject matter jurisdiction, as the current complaint fails to establish federal question jurisdiction and leaves diversity jurisdiction uncertain.
-
The court held that the statements made by CNN, even if critical or negative, were expressions of opinion or rhetorical hyperbole, not false statements of fact, and therefore not actionable as defamation under Florida law.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-07-27
The court granted the motion to remand, finding the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-07-19
The court held that the plaintiff adequately pleaded claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment, but the request for attorney's fees was properly stricken due to lack of legal basis.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy.
-
The court held that a fictitious party defendant's citizenship is disregarded for diversity jurisdiction purposes, and thus removal was proper.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-07-10
The court held that the complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to plead a waiver of sovereign immunity and the Tucker Act vests exclusive jurisdiction for claims over $10,000 in the Court of Federal Claims.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-06-30
The court held that a plaintiff's motion to amend a complaint to add a non-diverse defendant after removal should be granted if the Hensgens factors weigh in favor of joinder, leading to remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-06-16
The court held that the removal of the breach of contract action to federal court was improper due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.