615 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 389 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
500 F. Supp. 491·
S.D. Fla.·
1980-09-30
·cited 1×
The court held that the brokerage firm (SHS) acted properly in liquidating the customer's (LMI) commodity futures positions due to margin deficiencies, and that the customer's alter ego claim was not supported.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to establish the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction based on the evidence provided.
-
The court held that because the plaintiff and defendants shared citizenship in the same states, complete diversity was lacking, requiring remand to state court.
-
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was insufficient to establish federal diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy was not adequately demonstrated.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-12-05
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for default judgment because the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to establish subject matter jurisdiction, specifically regarding the amount in controversy.
-
The court granted the motion to remand because the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving complete diversity of citizenship.
-
The court held that the defendant insurance agent was a citizen of Utah, not Florida, thus establishing complete diversity and denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to sufficiently demonstrate the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction.
-
The district court dismissed plaintiff AJ Brown's diversity action against multiple defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that Brown and at least two defendants were citizens of the same state (Florida), thus failing to satisfy the complete diversity require
-
The court held that the defendant failed to establish diversity jurisdiction, thus the case must be remanded to state court.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-11-07
The court held that transfer to the Southern District of Florida is appropriate for the convenience of parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice.
-
The court denied the motion for default judgment because the plaintiff failed to establish the court's jurisdiction over the parties and claims.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to sufficiently establish the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction based on the provided evidence.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, as the defendant's own attorney's fees incurred in litigating the fee dispute could not be counted towards the amount in controversy from the plaintiff's perspective. Therefore,
-
The court held that the amended complaint failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction based on federal question or diversity of citizenship.
-
The court held that a plaintiff must sufficiently allege citizenship of all parties to establish diversity jurisdiction, and allegations based on information and belief are insufficient.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's motion to remand is granted because the amount in controversy does not meet the federal subject matter jurisdiction threshold.
-
The court held that a private debt collector cannot violate due process rights and that diversity jurisdiction was not properly established due to lack of complete diversity. The court also found a forum selection clause in loan documents to be enforceable, requiring dismissal of
-
The court held that the plaintiff's petition did not adequately allege diversity of citizenship, which is required for federal subject matter jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the defendant's removal of the case was timely because it was filed within 30 days of receiving 'other paper' that clarified the plaintiff's domicile for diversity jurisdiction purposes. Therefore, the motion to remand is denied.
-
The Eleventh Circuit remanded this diversity jurisdiction case to the district court to determine whether the plaintiff adequately alleged his state citizenship and domicile. The district court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of d
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-09-02
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was untimely because the initial pleading did not establish federal jurisdiction and subsequent documents did not unambiguously establish removability within the statutory time limits.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to properly allege federal subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity.
-
The court held that it must remand the case to state court because the addition of a non-diverse defendant destroyed subject matter jurisdiction.
-
The court recommended remanding the case because the notice of removal failed to properly allege diversity of citizenship, and the defendant did not cure these deficiencies.
-
The defendant failed to meet her burden of establishing federal subject-matter jurisdiction, requiring her to supplement the notice of removal.
-
The district court addresses a jurisdictional defect in a diversity action by ordering the plaintiff to clarify his domicile as of the complaint filing date, as assertions of residence are insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction under federal law.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction because the defendant did not adequately plead the citizenship of one of the parties and did not provide sufficient evidence to meet the amount in controversy requirement.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-07-28
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to properly allege diversity of citizenship and deposit the disputed funds into the court registry.
-
Nicolas Manzini, a former lawyer, sued Miccosukee Tribe leaders Talbert Cypress and Lucas Osceola in federal court alleging they violated the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and defrauded casino patrons by manipulating cash-out kiosks to avoid refunding coin change. The court found
-
The court held that the defendants failed to establish federal jurisdiction, and therefore the case should be remanded to state court.
-
The defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing federal subject-matter jurisdiction through diversity, requiring supplementation of its removal notice.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-07-09
This is a venue determination case in which the district court transferred a diversity action from the Eastern District of California to the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff failed to establish that California was a proper venue for his claims against a Virginia reside
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-07-08
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to dismiss the Amended Complaint as a shotgun pleading and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
-
The court held that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the state law claims after dismissing the federal copyright claim, and therefore dismisses the state law claims without prejudice.
-
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction due to inadequate allegations regarding the parties' citizenships and the amount in controversy.
-
The court held that a plaintiff's complaint must affirmatively allege their state of citizenship to establish diversity jurisdiction, and a mere allegation of non-residency is insufficient.
-
The court held that State Farm provided sufficient evidence to establish the amount in controversy for removal, but must provide further evidence regarding the plaintiff's citizenship.
-
The court held that the defendant's removal of the case was timely because the 30-day clock for removal did not begin until the defendant ascertained the plaintiff's citizenship, which was provided in a response to a request for admission.
-
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was insufficient because it failed to adequately establish the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-05-05
Sun Nuclear Corporation sued Xcision Medical Systems, LLC in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to adequately plead the citizenship of the LLC defendant, which is necessary to establish d
-
The Court held that it lacked diversity jurisdiction because the plaintiff, a United States citizen domiciled abroad, cannot establish diversity jurisdiction with a citizen of a state.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-04-28
The court held that the plaintiff failed to properly plead diversity of citizenship, requiring dismissal without prejudice.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-04-28
The court held that the plaintiff failed to properly plead diversity of citizenship, requiring dismissal without prejudice.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-04-23
A defendant must properly plead the citizenship of all parties to establish diversity jurisdiction, and mere allegations of residence are insufficient.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-04-23
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction and was inadequately pleaded, warranting dismissal.
-
The court held that the defendants failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction, requiring remand to state court.
-
The court held that the defendants failed to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity.
-
The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint was deficient in its jurisdictional allegations and constituted a shotgun pleading, requiring dismissal without prejudice.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-03-26
The court held that Expect Quest, LLC, a Florida citizen, must be aligned as a defendant due to antagonism between its managing members, destroying diversity jurisdiction.