Diversity Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332)

661 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 931 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Mayakan v. Carnival Corp.
  721 F. Supp. 2d 1201· M.D. Fla.· 2010-06-14
  The court held that while some claims must be arbitrated under the New York Convention, Jones Act claims cannot be compelled to arbitration due to prospective waiver of statutory rights.
• Mt. Hawley Ins. v. Sarasota Residences, LLC
  714 F. Supp. 2d 1176· M.D. Fla.· 2010-05-21
  The court granted the motion to dismiss, abstaining from exercising jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment action in favor of a parallel state court proceeding.
• Mesia v. Fla. Agric. & Mech. Univ. Sch. of Law
  605 F. Supp. 2d 1230· M.D. Fla.· 2009-03-16
  The court held that a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a state law bill of discovery absent an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.
• Mitsui Lines Ltd. v. CSX Intermodal, Inc.
  564 F. Supp. 2d 1357· S.D. Fla.· 2008-07-11
  The court held that a defendant's failure to timely and bindingly manifest consent to removal, despite oral or email assurances, warrants remand.
• Home Quality Mgmt., Inc. v. Ace Am. Ins.
  381 F. Supp. 2d 1363· S.D. Fla.· 2005-07-01
  The court held that challenges to the validity of the entire contract containing an arbitration clause, rather than the arbitration clause itself, must be resolved by an arbitrator.
• Allstar Care Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of S.C.
  184 F. Supp. 2d 1295· S.D. Fla.· 2002-01-30
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising under the Medicare Act, even when brought under diversity jurisdiction, because they were inextricably intertwined with Medicare benefits determinations.
• Seguros Commercial Am. v. Hall
  115 F. Supp. 2d 1371· M.D. Fla.· 2000-09-15
  The court held that while the Convention is self-executing and grants federal jurisdiction, it does not create a private right of action for the Mexican insurers to pursue claims in federal court.
• Norman v. Wilks
  154 F.R.D. 117· M.D. Fla.· 1998-07-02
  The court granted the motions to transfer the case to the Middle District of Tennessee, deferring ruling on the motions to dismiss.
• Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Daily
  1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11125· S.D. Fla.· 1998-05-29
  The court held that the parties' agreement clearly and unmistakably indicated their intent to submit all controversies, including eligibility for arbitration, to arbitration, and thus the arbitrator, not the court, has jurisdiction to rule on the claim's eligibility.
• Parham v. Lámar
  1 F. Supp. 2d 1457· M.D. Fla.· 1998-04-16
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were properly dismissed because of lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient service of process, failure to state a constitutional tort, and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Rhein Med., Inc. v. Koehler
  889 F. Supp. 1511· M.D. Fla.· 1995-06-19
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, enforcing the settlement agreement and imposing Rule 11 sanctions against the plaintiff and its counsel for dilatory conduct and improper purpose.
• Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. United States
  999 F.2d 581· D.C. Cir.· 1993-08-10
  The court held that the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act does not grant the government priority over an injured individual's claim to insurance proceeds, and that the limited fund should be divided ratably based on equitable principles.
• Dickie v. City OF Tomah
  999 F.2d 252· 7th Cir.· 1993-07-15 ·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the recovery of litigation expenses in a condemnation proceeding under Wisconsin law is an ancillary remedy within the original condemnation action, not an independent cause of action. Therefore, a federal court cannot entertain a separate suit for these expen
• McWATERS v. Parker
  995 F.2d 1366· 7th Cir.· 1993-05-20
  A release agreement is valid and bars a personal injury suit if the parties' mistake regarding the extent of injuries was unilateral, or if the plaintiff's reliance on alleged misrepresentations about the document's nature was unreasonable.
• Easley v. Pettibone Mich. Corp.
  990 F.2d 905· 6th Cir.· 1993-04-08 ·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  An action filed in violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay is voidable, not void, and must be refiled within 30 days after the stay is lifted to comply with the statute of limitations.
• SOO Line R.R. Co. v. Overton
  992 F.2d 640· 7th Cir.· 1993-03-31 ·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The dissent argues that the majority's analysis is incompatible with Supreme Court jurisprudence on constitutional limitations on choice of law.
• Farr v. United States
  990 F.2d 451· 9th Cir.· 1993-03-29
  The court held that the employer is not immune from liability for turning over exempt workmen's compensation benefits, as these were not subject to the IRS levy. The court also held that the dismissal of the claim challenging the procedural validity of the wage levy against the U
• Engel v. CBS Inc.
  981 F.2d 1076· 9th Cir.· 1992-12-16 ·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that New York law governs the malicious prosecution claim and that the plaintiff has not yet pleaded sufficient facts to meet New York's special injury requirement, but should be allowed to amend the complaint.
• Jacquelyne L. Neal v. Brown
  980 F.2d 747· D.C. Cir.· 1992-12-11 ·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  A federal district court's denial of a motion to remand is not subject to interlocutory review by a court of appeals.
• John P. Lannan for the Estate of Ashley JoAnne Brewer v. Maul
  979 F.2d 627· 8th Cir.· 1992-11-09 ·via Domestic Relations Exception To Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction does not apply to a third-party beneficiary contract claim, and abstention was inappropriate as the claim was not substantially related to pending state proceedings.
• Capitol Indem. Corp. v. Miles
  978 F.2d 437· 8th Cir.· 1992-10-29 ·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
• Fisher v. Combustion Eng'g, Inc.
  976 F.2d 293· 6th Cir.· 1992-09-29 ·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims because they were not preempted by ERISA due to a pre-ERISA act or omission, and diversity jurisdiction was also absent.
• Kutsugeras v. Avco Corp.
  973 F.2d 1341· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-01
  The court held that the district court properly applied the two-tier verdict form, bifurcating injuries into entanglement and enhancement phases, consistent with Wisconsin law as interpreted in Farrell v. John Deere Co.
• Matao C. Yokeno v. Mafnas
  973 F.2d 803· 9th Cir.· 1992-08-28
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction based on federal question, and remanded for a determination of whether diversity jurisdiction exists, considering the federal anti-collusion statute.
• DELTA Fin. Corp. v. Paul D. Comanduras & Assocs.
  973 F.2d 301· 4th Cir.· 1992-08-18
  The court held that the district court erred in compelling arbitration without first determining if a newly added limited partner was a necessary party under Rule 19(a).
• TSO v. Delaney
  969 F.2d 373· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-22
  The court held that attorney neglect alone does not constitute good cause for failing to properly serve process within the required time, but that the $250,000 damage limit under Wis. Stat. § 345.05 applies to claims arising from negligent operation of a municipal motor vehicle,
• Woolard v. Heyer-Schulte
  1992 WL 110958· S.D. Fla.· 1992-05-13 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 1332(A)
  A defendant's notice of removal can supply missing jurisdictional facts not present in the plaintiff's complaint, provided those facts are not contradicted.
• Franzel v. Kerr Mfg. Co.
  959 F.2d 628· 6th Cir.· 1992-03-26 ·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that unchallenged facts in a removal petition do not constitute conclusive findings of fact, and the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction can be raised for the first time on appeal.
• Temple Drilling Co. v. La. Ins. Guar. Ass'n
  946 F.2d 390· 5th Cir.· 1991-10-23 ·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction based on either diversity of citizenship or admiralty, vacating the judgment.
• Mihail Chemiakin v. Igor Yefimov
  932 F.2d 124· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-29
  The court held that a district court lacks the power to sanction a party solely based on the lack of merit of a case it has no jurisdiction to decide.
• Wagner Furniture Interiors v. Kemner's Georgetown Manor
  929 F.2d 343· 7th Cir.· 1991-04-08
  The court held that the defendants waived their objection to the plaintiff's capacity to sue by failing to raise it in a timely and specific manner as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(a) and applicable state law.
• Dyer v. Merrill Lynch
  928 F.2d 238· 7th Cir.· 1991-03-27
  The court held that the plaintiff's federal claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that the churning and suitability claims failed on their merits.
• Justice v. Atchison
  927 F.2d 503· 10th Cir.· 1991-02-28
  The court held that the district court properly exercised its discretion in removing the entire case, including damages claims not meeting the jurisdictional amount, when joined with a removable injunction claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c).
• Ashton v. The Josephine BAY Paul & C. Michael Paul Found., Inc.
  918 F.2d 1065· 2d Cir.· 1990-11-16 ·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that federal statutory interpleader jurisdiction was met and the probate exception did not require abstention, affirming the injunction.
• Garst v. Tritle
  928 F.2d 81· 4th Cir.· 1990-04-04 ·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that a federal court should not recognize a state law retaliatory discharge claim that the state's highest court has not yet recognized, absent compelling circumstances.
• Mathis v. Nugent T. Brasher, Jr.
  891 F.2d 107· 5th Cir.· 1989-12-29
  The court held that the writings and recorded conversations sufficiently memorialized a contract entitling Mathis to 25% of interests acquired by Brasher and Bravo Resources from Humphrey in the Four Corners area.
• Vaughan v. Smithson
  883 F.2d 63· 10th Cir.· 1989-08-21 ·via Domestic Relations Exception To Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that a breach of contract claim for child support, even if framed as a contract, falls within the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction.
• Forum Ins. Co. v. Allied Sec., Inc.
  866 F.2d 80· 3d Cir.· 1989-01-24 ·via Diversity Suit
  The dissenting judge would hold that the insurance policy's exclusions do not apply to the claim, and therefore the insurer should be liable.
• Allen Archery, Inc. v. Precision Shooting Equip., Inc.
  865 F.2d 896· 7th Cir.· 1989-01-20
  The court held that the licensing agreement obligated the licensee to pay royalties on the full sale price of crossbows, including the stock, and on items like overdraw mechanisms and camouflage paint, as they were not considered separable accessories.
• Kyriakopoulos v. George Wash. Univ.
  866 F.2d 438· D.C. Cir.· 1989-01-13 ·via Diversity Suit
  The court held that claims based on a prior decision are time-barred by the statute of limitations, and subsequent grievance proceedings do not toll this period unless they involve a new, distinct illegality.
• Mursch v. VAN Dorn Co.
  851 F.2d 990· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-13
  An employee handbook's "guidelines" and a supervisor's casual remark about job longevity do not, as a matter of law, create an express contract altering the at-will employment relationship under Wisconsin law.
• Kohler v. Ericsson, Inc.
  847 F.2d 499· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-24
  The court held that the employer's failure to provide timely performance evaluations and a job description did not constitute a breach of an implied-in-fact contract or the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as the employee's admitted poor performance was the cause
• Baker v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  846 F.2d 495· 8th Cir.· 1988-05-10
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the statutory damages and potential attorney fees were insufficient to meet the jurisdictional amount.
• Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Juntunen
  838 F.2d 942· 7th Cir.· 1988-01-28 ·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest, did not meet the $10,000 threshold for federal diversity jurisdiction.
• Int'l Surplus Lines Ins. v. City of Crystal River
  418 F.2d 1300· M.D. Fla.· 1987-12-14 ·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the entire action, including the City's counterclaim against Consolidated, based on ancillary jurisdiction over a compulsory counterclaim.
• O.J. Vincent v. A.C. & S., Inc.
  833 F.2d 553· 5th Cir.· 1987-12-07
  The court held that the district court's March 15, 1984 order was not a voluntary dismissal under Louisiana law, thus the statute of limitations was tolled.
• 202 Marketplace v. Evans Prods. Co. v. Healey
  824 F.2d 1363· 3d Cir.· 1987-08-14
  The court held that a landlord cannot declare a lease forfeiture based on an implied covenant regarding common area use, and that the Statute of Frauds requires any surrender of a leasehold interest to be in writing. The court reversed the forfeiture judgment and affirmed summary
• Thornhill v. Donnkenny, Inc.
  823 F.2d 782· 4th Cir.· 1987-07-14 ·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the jury's verdict for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty was supported by sufficient evidence, but the denial of prejudgment interest was error, and the malicious termination claim is not a valid cause of action under Virginia law.
• Sullivan v. Mochen
  646 F. Supp. 216· S.D. Fla.· 1986-10-23
  Removal to federal court was improper because diversity jurisdiction was not established at the time the complaint was filed, and no federal question was presented.
• Kahn v. Hotel Ramada OF Nev.
  799 F.2d 199· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-10 ·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A Nevada statute limits a hotel's liability for lost guest property to $750, even in cases of gross negligence, unless the hotel expressly waives this limitation.