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 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 a second removal on the same grounds as a prior denied removal is barred, and even if a new ground was presented, it was untimely.
-
The court held that plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to name a specific defendant should be granted, and because this amendment destroyed diversity jurisdiction, the case must be remanded to state court.
-
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.
-
The court held that the plaintiff should be permitted to amend the complaint to add a nondiverse defendant, as the joinder was not fraudulent.
-
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.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was deficient in alleging subject-matter jurisdiction and constituted a shotgun pleading, warranting its dismissal.
-
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over claims against defendant Yates because he is a citizen of Florida, destroying complete diversity, and he is a dispensable party.
-
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 the plaintiff failed to adequately plead diversity jurisdiction by not establishing her own citizenship and the amount in controversy, thus lacking subject matter jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the defendant's principal place of business is Minnesota, establishing diversity jurisdiction and denying the motion to remand.
-
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 neither the defendant's notice of removal nor the plaintiff's amended complaint sufficiently alleged federal subject matter jurisdiction, specifically diversity jurisdiction.
-
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.·
2019-11-26
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 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 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.
-
The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, remanding the case because the defendant failed to establish diversity jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead diversity jurisdiction, requiring dismissal without prejudice.
-
The court found that diversity jurisdiction exists because the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy likely exceeds $75,000.
-
The court held that Plaintiff's motion to amend to add a non-diverse defendant should be granted, and the case should be remanded to state court because diversity jurisdiction would be destroyed.
-
The court held that good cause existed to set aside the clerk's entry of default because the defendants' delay was not culpable, the plaintiffs would not be prejudiced, and the defendants presented a potentially meritorious defense.
-
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.
-
74 F. Supp. 831·
S.D. Fla.·
2013-03-13
The court held that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged interstate commerce but failed to allege facts supporting a joint enterprise theory under the FLSA.
-
The court held that the defendant's principal place of business is Georgia, establishing diversity jurisdiction and denying the motion to remand.
-
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
-
990 F.2d 905·
6th Cir.·
1993-04-08
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.
-
The dissent argues that the majority's analysis is incompatible with Supreme Court jurisprudence on constitutional limitations on choice of law.
-
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.
-
980 F.2d 747·
D.C. Cir.·
1992-12-11
A federal district court's denial of a motion to remand is not subject to interlocutory review by a court of appeals.
-
-
976 F.2d 293·
6th Cir.·
1992-09-29
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.
-
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the parties were not diverse in citizenship.
-
A defendant's notice of removal can supply missing jurisdictional facts not present in the plaintiff's complaint, provided those facts are not contradicted.
-
959 F.2d 628·
6th Cir.·
1992-03-26
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.
-
946 F.2d 390·
5th Cir.·
1991-10-23
The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction based on either diversity of citizenship or admiralty, vacating the judgment.
-
The court lacks jurisdiction because the state law claims are not preempted by ERISA and the plaintiff is not an authorized party to bring an ERISA civil enforcement action.
-
918 F.2d 1065·
2d Cir.·
1990-11-16
The court held that federal statutory interpleader jurisdiction was met and the probate exception did not require abstention, affirming the injunction.
-
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.
-
The dissenting judge would hold that the insurance policy's exclusions do not apply to the claim, and therefore the insurer should be liable.
-
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.
-
The court held that the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest, did not meet the $10,000 threshold for federal diversity jurisdiction.
-
418 F.2d 1300·
M.D. Fla.·
1987-12-14
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.
-
823 F.2d 782·
4th Cir.·
1987-07-14
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.
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying the motion to remand because the appellants stated a legitimate cause of action against the in-state defendant (Paulson) for fraudulent inducement under Texas law, thus defeating complete diversity.
-
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.
-
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.