615 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 389 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately allege diversity jurisdiction by not specifying the citizenship of the parties' members or partners.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-02-20
The court held that the defendants' notice of removal was insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy.
-
The court held that the Plaintiffs' RICO claims are barred by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) because the alleged fraudulent conduct was actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities, and therefore, the court lacks federal question jurisdiction.
-
The court denied the motion for default final judgment because the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege subject-matter jurisdiction and had discrepancies in requested fees and costs.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction, warranting dismissal with leave to amend.
-
The court denied the plaintiff's emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction because she failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, demonstrate irreparable harm without an adequate legal remedy, provide for security, a
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to adequately allege subject matter jurisdiction, specifically diversity jurisdiction, and therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-12-09
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to sufficiently plead diversity jurisdiction because it did not properly identify the citizenship of the parties or the amount in controversy.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish subject-matter jurisdiction and venue because the complaint did not properly allege the defendants' citizenship and failed to satisfy venue requirements.
-
The court held that removal was timely because the initial complaint did not establish complete diversity, and the subsequent Rule 7.1 disclosure clarified diversity, making the removal notice timely.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-10-04
The Court denied the plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint, as it was filed after the case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and the plaintiff failed to establish grounds for relief under Rule 60(b).
-
The court held that removal was improper because the defendant failed to establish federal question or diversity jurisdiction, and therefore the motion to remand must be granted.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately allege diversity jurisdiction because he did not properly establish his own citizenship or the citizenship of the defendant LLC.
-
The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's complaint because the plaintiff failed to establish federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's motion to remand is denied because the amount in controversy, based on a pre-suit demand letter, exceeded the $75,000 threshold at the time of removal.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was deficient for failing to establish subject matter jurisdiction, violating pleading standards, and failing to state a cognizable claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, and recommended dismissal with leave to amend.
-
Pro se plaintiff Michael Ross filed a defamation action against iHeartMedia, Inc. in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because both parties were citizens of Texas, destroying
-
In this diversity action for fraud and breach of contract, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that the defendants' alleged intentional drafting of fraudulent checks in Florida satisfied Florida's tortious act statute. The
-
The court recommended dismissal of the second amended complaint because it remained deficient in multiple respects, including improper pleading, failure to establish subject-matter jurisdiction, and inclusion of impermissible class action allegations.
-
The court recommended granting the plaintiff's motion for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest but denying attorneys' fees without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to resubmit a revised request limited to fees for the civil theft claim.
-
The court held that the notice of removal was timely because although the amount in controversy was apparent from the complaint, the plaintiff's citizenship was not, and removal occurred within 30 days of discovery clarifying citizenship.
-
The court recommended denial of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissal of the complaint without prejudice, granting leave to amend.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's motion to remand is denied because the case was timely removed and federal court has diversity jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-07-25
The court held that a pro se plaintiff's amended complaint must be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not meet the $75,000 threshold for diversity jurisdiction, and further amendment would be futile.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship or federal question, requiring dismissal of the complaint.
-
The court held that diversity jurisdiction was properly established, and therefore, the motion to remand is denied.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction by not providing sufficient evidence of the plaintiff's principal place of business, necessitating remand.
-
Retailer-defendants are not fraudulently joined when a state court has dismissed claims against them on preemption grounds if the dismissal is appealable and the preemption issue remains subject to reasonable legal debate.
-
Retailer-defendants are not fraudulently joined when a state court dismissal on preemption grounds remains appealable and the preemption issue presents reasonable legal debate.
-
Retailer-defendants are not fraudulently joined when a state court has dismissed claims against them on preemption grounds but the preemption issue remains subject to reasonable legal debate and appellate review.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-06-10
The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the amended complaint as frivolous and lacking jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to sufficiently establish the amount in controversy for removal based on diversity jurisdiction.
-
The court held that a plaintiff's conclusory estimation of damages is insufficient to establish federal diversity jurisdiction.
-
The court held that while some plaintiffs' claims met the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction, one plaintiff's claims did not, leading to dismissal of that plaintiff's case.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege diversity of citizenship, requiring dismissal without prejudice.
-
The Florida civil cover sheet, by itself, is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction; defendants must provide additional evidence beyond the cover sheet and generic complaint allegations to meet their burden of proof for removal.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-03-25
The Florida civil cover sheet, by itself, is generally insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction, but it can be considered as some evidence when combined with other supporting facts.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-03-25
The Florida civil cover sheet, by itself, is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction; defendants must provide additional evidence beyond the cover sheet and generic complaint allegations to meet their burden of proof for removal.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-03-25
The Florida civil cover sheet, by itself, is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction; defendants must provide additional evidence beyond generic allegations and the cover sheet.
-
A conclusory demand in a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation, without specific details or supporting documents, is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity 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.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish diversity jurisdiction and ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, or improper venue.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction for removal based on diversity.
-
The court held that the complaint must be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to adequately invoke federal question or diversity jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to properly allege citizenship for diversity jurisdiction under CAFA, and thus the complaint was dismissed without prejudice.
-
The court held that removal was improper due to a lack of complete diversity, as a non-diverse party was not fraudulently joined.
-
The court held that the notice of removal failed to adequately allege the citizenship of the parties and the amount in controversy, requiring amended allegations.
-
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.
-
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to insufficient pleading of diversity requirements and because it constituted a shotgun pleading.
-
The court held that the complaint must be dismissed without prejudice because it fails to adequately plead subject-matter jurisdiction and constitutes a shotgun pleading.