661 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 931 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-08-26
The court held that a defendant's removal of a case was timely because the 30-day removal period began when the plaintiffs' responses to requests for admissions revealed the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction by not properly pleading the citizenship of the plaintiff LLC.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-07-20
The court held that the defendant's allegations regarding the plaintiff's citizenship were insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-07-19
The court held that the plaintiff's claims were properly dismissed because the malicious prosecution claim was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, the due process claims were barred by prosecutorial immunity, and the state law claims were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-07-17
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff's claims arose under state law and the amount in controversy did not meet the statutory threshold for diversity jurisdiction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-07-06
The court held that the defendants' removal of the case was untimely because the plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint provided sufficient information to ascertain removability more than 30 days prior to removal.
-
The court held that the complaint failed to adequately plead subject-matter jurisdiction because it did not properly allege the defendant's citizenship.
-
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.·
2021-06-03
The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead diversity jurisdiction because the citizenship of the defendant LLC was not sufficiently established.
-
A plaintiff's refusal to stipulate that their damages do not exceed $75,000 is insufficient, standing alone, to establish federal diversity jurisdiction for removal.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction, as the amount in controversy for an ejectment action cannot be determined by monetary value from the defendant's perspective.
-
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was untimely because it was filed more than thirty days after the plaintiffs filed their amended complaint, which provided sufficient information to ascertain removability.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-04-28
The Court held that the pro se plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible claim and lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, warranting dismissal without prejudice.
-
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.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-04-19
The court held that the defendants failed to establish fraudulent joinder, thus diversity jurisdiction was destroyed, and the case must be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-04-13
The court held that the defendant established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, and that the removal was procedurally proper despite a technical defect in the initial notice of removal.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-04-09
The court held that the plaintiff's motion to transfer venue to the Middle District of Florida is granted because changed circumstances have rendered the original venue improper and the Middle District is a more convenient and appropriate forum.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-03-29
The court held that the removal was proper because the non-diverse defendant was fraudulently joined and allowed amendment of the notice of removal to cure defective jurisdictional allegations.
-
The court held that a settlement demand alone is insufficient to establish federal diversity jurisdiction, and the defendant must provide further factual allegations to support its claim.
-
The court held that the complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and lacked sufficient allegations to establish subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity.
-
The court held that it lacked diversity jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to establish that defendant Navan, a key party for diversity purposes, was domiciled in Louisiana, and therefore, the LLC was also not diverse.
-
The court held that the defendant's removal of the case was timely and proper, denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-03-16
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction because it failed to plausibly allege the amount in controversy.
-
Nursing home residents and their representatives sued a real estate brokerage firm and a facility operator in Florida state court alleging fraud in obtaining nursing facility licenses, but the defendants removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act. The E
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to adequately allege diversity jurisdiction because it stated the defendants' residences instead of their citizenship.
-
The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff's claims were not barred by the litigation privilege and that the defendant failed to establish that a former landlord was an indispensable party whose absence warranted dismissal.
-
The court held that the defendant met its burden to establish federal diversity jurisdiction, denying the plaintiffs' motion to remand.
-
The court held that the amended complaint failed to establish diversity jurisdiction because it only alleged residency, not citizenship, of the defendant.
-
The court held that the removing defendants failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold, thus the case must be remanded to state court.
-
A court may permit joinder of a non-diverse defendant after removal if the Hensgens factors weigh in favor of joinder, even if it destroys subject matter jurisdiction and requires remand.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-01-22
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was untimely because the case was removable from the outset, and the defendant failed to remove it within the statutory 30-day period.
-
The court held that the removing party failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal failed to adequately plead diversity jurisdiction because it did not properly allege the citizenship of the parties, particularly the LLC and one of the individual defendants.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-01-13
The court dismissed the case because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred review of the state court's judgment.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-01-12
The court held that the defendants failed to establish the plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent removal, and therefore the untimely removal of the case to federal court was improper.
-
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case because the plaintiffs failed to allege any basis for federal jurisdiction and had repeatedly failed to cure such deficiencies in prior filings.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-12-29
The court held that the complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and because abstention principles apply.
-
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint failed to allege complete diversity of citizenship.
-
The court held that it has subject matter jurisdiction and that the plaintiff has stated plausible claims for fraudulent transfer under the Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to establish subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship because the notice of removal and complaint did not sufficiently allege the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-12-01
The court held that removal to federal court was improper because the plaintiff's amended complaint did not establish federal question or diversity jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction, requiring remand to state court.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
-
# Summary
Boston Scientific Corporation attempted six months after the summary judgment deadline to raise a choice-of-law argument that Massachusetts law should govern a Florida resident's punitive damages claim arising from an allegedly defective transvaginal surgical mesh impl
-
The court held that the defendant failed to establish fraudulent joinder, meaning complete diversity was lacking, and thus the case must be remanded to state court.
-
The court held that the complaint must be dismissed because it fails to establish a basis for federal jurisdiction and does not state a plausible claim for relief.
-
The court held that a stateless defendant destroys diversity jurisdiction, and that the defendant was not a dispensable party, requiring remand.
-
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction because the plaintiff's complaint only alleged residence, not citizenship.
-
The court held that the defendant's removal of the case was timely because the 30-day removal period began when the defendant received the plaintiff's discovery responses, which unambiguously established federal jurisdiction.
-
The court granted the unopposed motion to sever and transfer cases of out-of-state plaintiffs to more appropriate venues.