661 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 931 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
The court granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion to sever and transfer cases involving out-of-state plaintiffs to more appropriate venues.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-08-05
The court held that the probate exception to diversity jurisdiction does not bar the action, and abstention under the Colorado River doctrine is not warranted.
-
A case is not removable under diversity jurisdiction if any properly joined defendant is a citizen of the forum state, regardless of whether that defendant has been served at the time of removal.
-
The court held that the amount in controversy did not exceed the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold, and therefore the case must be remanded to state court.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction as to DAS and granted leave to amend, but found venue proper for DAS.
-
The court held that the defendant demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus denying the motion to remand.
-
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 settlement demand, not the initial complaint.
-
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal failed to adequately allege its citizenship, making it impossible to determine if diversity jurisdiction exists.
-
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 unambiguously established the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
-
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's common law claims for fraud and negligence.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-03-31
The Court granted the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding the plaintiff's claims barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel due to prior litigation.
-
The court held that the defendant met its burden to establish complete diversity and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, thus denying the motion to remand.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-02-28
The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the dispute likely arose in connection with the business activities of the associated person and that the definition of 'customer' under FINRA rules is broad.
-
The court held that anticipated attorney's fees and costs cannot be considered when determining the amount in controversy for removal jurisdiction, and the defendant failed to prove incurred fees met the threshold.
-
The court held that removal was untimely because the defendant had sufficient notice of the amount in controversy over thirty days before filing the notice of removal. The court also found that the diversity jurisdiction exception for direct actions against insurers did not apply
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-02-21
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish complete diversity of citizenship, and therefore, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
-
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to allege a basis for federal question or diversity jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-02-11
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for ERISA statutory penalties but sufficiently alleged claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence, thus the motion to remand is granted.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead diversity jurisdiction by not properly stating the citizenship of herself or the defendants.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-12-30
The court held that the plaintiffs stated a colorable claim against the non-diverse defendants, thus preventing removal based on fraudulent joinder.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-12-30
The court held that the plaintiffs stated a colorable claim against the non-diverse defendants, thus denying the defendant's claim of fraudulent joinder and granting the motions to remand.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-12-30
The court held that the plaintiffs stated a colorable claim against the non-diverse defendants, thus preventing fraudulent joinder and requiring remand to state court.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-12-30
The court held that the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction was met and that a mandatory forum selection clause in the employment agreement required transfer of the case to the Southern District of Alabama.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-12-26
The court held that the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient diligence to toll the statute of limitations for most claims, but equitable estoppel applied to certain counts. The court also found that diversity jurisdiction was proper and that indispensable parties were not absent.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to properly allege the defendant's citizenship, which is necessary to establish diversity jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the defendant met its burden of demonstrating fraudulent joinder, thus establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction and denying the motion to remand.
-
The court held that the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000, and therefore, federal diversity jurisdiction was lacking, requiring remand to state court. The court also granted Plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees incurred due to the improper removal.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-12-04
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary injunction because it failed to comply with procedural rules and lacked federal subject matter jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal failed to adequately allege diversity of citizenship, requiring an amendment.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to prove the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus the case must be remanded to state court. However, attorney's fees for removal were denied.
-
A bare-bones settlement demand, even when including attorney's fees, is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction without supporting evidence of damages and incurred fees.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to establish diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000, and therefore the case must be remanded to state court.
-
The court held that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold, thus removal was proper and the motion to remand is denied.
-
The court held that a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is not recognized under Florida law and must be brought as a statutory bad faith claim, which is premature until underlying liability is established. The court also held that a claim for
-
The court held that attorney's fees and costs incurred at the time of removal, not projected future fees, should be considered for the amount in controversy in removed cases.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-10-31
The Court dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to allege a basis for federal jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the amount in controversy was met, denying remand, and dismissed several counts of the complaint as duplicative, barred by the independent tort doctrine, or not cognizable causes of action.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-09-25
The court dismissed the case because the complaint failed to state a claim and lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-09-23
The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion for sanctions, compelling the plaintiff to complete her deposition and awarding attorney's fees, while denying dismissal. The court also denied the plaintiff's motion to transfer venue.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible claim for premises liability and denied the motion to remand due to sufficient evidence of the amount in controversy.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-09-04
The court held that a removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy, including attorney's fees, exceeds the jurisdictional threshold at the time of removal, and prospective fees are too speculative.
-
Fla. 5th DCA·
2018-10-15
Section 1367(d) tolls the statute of limitations for state law claims dismissed in federal court, regardless of whether the federal claims were frivolous or lacked subject matter jurisdiction, provided the state claims were asserted under supplemental jurisdiction and refiled wit
-
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133884·
S.D. Fla.·
2015-09-23
The court held that general maritime claims and Jones Act claims are not removable to federal court without an independent basis for jurisdiction, even after the 2011 amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1441.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2015-09-08
The court held that the non-adverse party, Ritten, should be realigned as a plaintiff, establishing diversity jurisdiction and denying the motion to remand.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2015-04-07
The court held that a prior acceleration and dismissal of a foreclosure action does not bar subsequent foreclosure actions based on separate defaults, and that a mortgage lien terminates five years after its maturity date as per the statute of repose.
-
The court held that the amount in controversy for the breach of contract claim against the insurer did not exceed $75,000, and therefore, federal diversity jurisdiction was lacking.
-
1990 WL 178675·
S.D. Fla.·
2013-03-28
The court held that Defendant Cox engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within Florida, establishing general personal jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute.
-
The court held that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged interstate commerce but failed to allege facts supporting a joint enterprise theory under the FLSA.
-
649 F. App'x 217·
S.D. Fla.·
2012-03-21
The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants for the state law claims and that the RICO claim was not pleaded with sufficient particularity, warranting dismissal of the entire complaint.