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 defendant failed to establish federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy, requiring remand.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, despite demonstrating diversity of citizenship.
-
The court held that the case must be dismissed without prejudice because the plaintiffs failed to allege complete diversity of citizenship, a requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-02-07
The court held that it lacked supplemental jurisdiction over the permissive counterclaim because it did not arise from a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claims, and alternatively, would decline to exercise jurisdiction as it would substantially predominate over
-
The court held that the pro se plaintiffs' complaint must be dismissed without prejudice for failing to adequately allege subject-matter jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-12-20
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to allege damages sufficient to meet the $75,000 jurisdictional amount for their conversion claim, thus dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
-
The court held that it could not determine subject matter jurisdiction due to inadequately pled citizenship of a minor plaintiff and ordered the defendant to file a redacted amended notice.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-11-24
The court held that the defendants failed to establish diversity jurisdiction by not sufficiently identifying the domicile of the LLC members.
-
The court granted the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis but struck the complaint because it failed to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction, requiring remand to state court.
-
The court held that the defendant's removal of the case was timely because the 30-day removal period began when the plaintiffs' admissions in their discovery responses made the case's removability apparent.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-10-13
The court held that a motion to amend a complaint to add a party after removal must be denied if the movant fails to provide the substance of the proposed amendment or attach a copy, and if the proposed joinder would destroy diversity jurisdiction without a sufficient showing of
-
The court held that the defendant failed to establish diversity jurisdiction because it relied on residency rather than domicile to allege citizenship.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-10-06
The court held that the defendants failed to sufficiently allege diversity jurisdiction, requiring them to provide more information.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold, thus the motion to remand is granted.
-
The court held that the defendant established domicile in North Carolina, thus maintaining diversity jurisdiction and denying the motion to remand.
-
The court held that the removal was timely, the defendant did not waive its right to remove, and diversity jurisdiction was established, thus denying the plaintiff's motion for remand.
-
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 it likely lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff, a U.S. citizen domiciled abroad, is considered 'stateless' for diversity purposes.
-
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction because it failed to properly allege the citizenship of the parties.
-
The court held that removal was improper because a defendant is a citizen of the forum state, divesting the court of diversity jurisdiction.
-
The court granted the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis but struck the complaint, finding it failed to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction by not properly pleading the citizenship of the plaintiff LLC.
-
The Court lacks sufficient information to establish diversity jurisdiction because the Amended Complaint fails to sufficiently allege the citizenship of Defendant Kouri Group and other parties.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-06-21
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 a judgment is not void under Rule 60(b)(4) if there was an arguable basis for jurisdiction, and that a motion to disqualify counsel requires proof of a specific ethical rule violation.
-
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 because it did not adequately plead the amount in controversy. Therefore, the case must be remanded to state court.
-
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 diversity jurisdiction was not satisfied because the amount in controversy was not met, and therefore granted the plaintiff's motion to remand.
-
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 residence of individual defendants instead of their citizenship and provided insufficient information regarding the citizenship of a bank and a trust.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-02-26
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 plaintiff's complaint failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction, warranting dismissal without prejudice.
-
The court held that the amended complaint failed to establish diversity jurisdiction because it only alleged residency, not citizenship, of the defendant.
-
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.
-
The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff, an alien corporation, is suing defendants who are also aliens, violating the principle of alienage jurisdiction which prohibits suits between two aliens.
-
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 the plaintiff's motion to remand must be denied without prejudice because the amended complaint failed to sufficiently plead the citizenship of the newly added defendants, only their residence.
-
# 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 federal subject-matter jurisdiction, requiring remand to state court.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-10-14
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 the defendant demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at the time of removal and that the parties were diverse.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to adequately plead diversity of citizenship, thus lacking subject matter jurisdiction for removal.
-
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 held that the plaintiff failed to establish diversity jurisdiction by not alleging the corporation's principal place of business.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-08-31
The court granted the unopposed motion to sever and transfer cases of out-of-state plaintiffs to more appropriate venues.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-08-18
The court granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion to sever and transfer cases involving out-of-state plaintiffs to more appropriate venues.
-
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.