Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(1)

520 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 195 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Ziady v. Curley
  396 F.2d 873· 4th Cir.· 1968-06-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that for diversity jurisdiction purposes, an infant's domicile follows that of his mother after the father's death, even if the mother remarries.
• In re Sch. Asbestos Litig. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc. v. The Honorable James McGirr Kelly
  921 F.2d 1310· 3d Cir.· 1990-12-13 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a clear and indisputable lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore, their petitions for writs of mandamus and prohibition were denied.
• Lang v. Pac. Marine & Supply Co., Ltd.
  895 F.2d 761· Fed. Cir.· 1990-02-05 ·cited 15×
  The court held that a patentee cannot bring a declaratory judgment action for threatened infringement when the infringing article is not yet completed and has not entered commerce, nor can they seek an injunction or bring claims for false marking or Lanham Act violations under th
• Harris Tr. & Sav. Bank v. E-Ii Holdings
  926 F.2d 636· 7th Cir.· 1991-02-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over most of the complaint because the trustees failed to take a position on the issues, thus failing to establish an actual controversy. The remaining claim for additional information failed to state a cause of action.
• The Gen. Contracting & Trading Co., LLC v. Interpole, Inc.
  899 F.2d 109· 1st Cir.· 1990-03-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside the default judgment, nor in denying the offset of judgments, nor in awarding attorneys' fees. However, the court found the district court erred in its handling of the personal jurisdicti
• Cedrick Holmes v. Fisher
  854 F.2d 229· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-09 ·cited 14×
  An order denying injunctive relief is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) even if a request for damages remains pending, and a plaintiff whose personal claim is moot at the time of filing cannot represent a class seeking equitable relief.
• United States v. Schulman
  817 F.2d 1355· 9th Cir.· 1987-05-20 ·cited 14×·via Rule 12(B)(1) Motion To Dismiss
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the tax fraud and conspiracy counts because the alleged tax shelter scheme, involving circular financing and sham loans, was clearly prohibited by law in 1978-1979, and thus the defendant could have had the requisite inte
• Schwarzkopf Dev. Corp. v. Ti-Coating, Inc.
  800 F.2d 240· Fed. Cir.· 1986-08-20 ·cited 14×
  The Federal Circuit granted the motion to transfer the appeal because the district court's jurisdiction was based on diversity and state contract law, not patent law, as the patent-related counterclaim was dismissed without opposition.
• Simanonok v. Germaine B. Simanonok
  787 F.2d 1517· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-29 ·cited 14×·via Rule 12(B)(1) Dismissal
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the plaintiff's due process claims were not wholly meritless and required further proceedings.
• Kaschak v. Consol. Rail Corp.
  707 F.2d 902· 6th Cir.· 1983-05-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an employee's claim of wrongful discharge, even if a 'minor dispute' under the RLA, may be heard in federal court if the employee reasonably relied on the union to process the grievance and the union's failure to do so prevented timely resort to the National R
• Hishon v. King & Spalding
  678 F.2d 1022· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-17 ·cited 14×
  Title VII applies to a partnership's decision to terminate an associate when that decision is inextricably linked to the associate's employment status.
• McLEARN v. Cowen & Co. & Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith
  660 F.2d 845· 2d Cir.· 1981-09-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) was not available for the substantial relief sought by the appellant.
• Johnsrud v. Carter
  620 F.2d 29· 3d Cir.· 1980-04-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the Administrative Procedure Act waives sovereign immunity for equitable relief claims and the political question doctrine was improperly applied to a jurisdiction
• Mullen v. Fitz Simons & Connell Dredge & Dock Co.
  172 F.2d 601· 7th Cir.· 1948-12-30 ·cited 14×
  Seamen may join claims for maintenance and cure with claims under the Jones Act in a single federal court action.
• Rojas Mamani v. Sanchez Berzain
  636 F. Supp. 2d 1326· S.D. Fla.· 2009-06-19 ·cited 13×·via Rule 12(B)(1) Motion To Dismiss
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to exhaust available remedies in Bolivia as required by the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA).
• MGC Commc'ns, Inc. v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc.
  146 F. Supp. 2d 1344· S.D. Fla.· 2001-05-17 ·cited 13×
  The court held that claims based on alleged violations of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 are not cognizable under the Sherman Act, and that the FCC's UNE Remand Order, as applied, does not create specific obligations enforceable under 47 U.S.C. § 401(b).
• Osborn v. United States
  918 F.2d 724· 8th Cir.· 1990-11-05 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the Osborns' claim was not time-barred because the mother did not have sufficient knowledge of the injury's cause until her conversation with Dr. Bartholomew in March 1984.
• Tiftarea Shopper, Inc. v. Ga. Shopper, Inc.
  786 F.2d 1115· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-15 ·cited 13×·via Rule 12(B)(1) Motion To Dismiss
  The court held that the complaint sufficiently stated a claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act for attempted monopolization, but not under Section 1 for conspiracy in restraint of trade. The dismissal of state law claims was reversed due to the surviving federal claim.
• Hamker v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Co.
  756 F.2d 392· 5th Cir.· 1985-04-01 ·cited 13×
  A citizen suit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act requires an allegation that the defendant is currently in violation of an effluent standard, limitation, or order, and does not permit suits for past violations or to recover damages.
• Psimenos v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc.
  722 F.2d 1041· 2d Cir.· 1983-11-28 ·cited 13×
  The court held that trading domestic futures contracts on U.S. markets, even for foreign investors, constitutes substantial conduct within the United States sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction under the Commodities Exchange Act.
• Paulina Perez v. Jule M. Sugarman
  499 F.2d 761· 2d Cir.· 1974-06-07 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the civil rights suit against private child-caring institutions, finding their actions constituted 'state action' under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• The Glynn Env't Coal., Inc. v. Sea Island Acquisition, LLC
  26 F.4th 1235· 11th Cir.· 2022-03-03 ·cited 12×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that a plaintiff's allegations of diminished aesthetic pleasure from viewing a wetland, which was filled with outside materials, suffice to establish an injury in fact for standing purposes.
• Lazarre v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
  780 F. Supp. 2d 1320· S.D. Fla.· 2011-04-14 ·cited 12×·via Rule 12(B)(1) Motion To Dismiss
  The court granted Chase's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to failure to exhaust FIRREA administrative remedies, and granted Early Warning's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under the FCRA.
• Figueroa v. Merscorp, Inc.
  766 F. Supp. 2d 1305· S.D. Fla.· 2011-01-31 ·cited 12×
  The district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims because they are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents federal courts from reviewing state court judgments.
• Cap. Imaging Assocs., P.C. v. Mohawk Valley Med. Assocs., Inc.
  996 F.2d 537· 2d Cir.· 1993-06-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that physicians in an independent practice association have the capacity to conspire under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and that the plaintiff presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to survive summary judgment on the conspiracy claim.
• The Procter & Gamble Co. & Riverview Prods., Inc. v. BIG Apple Indus. Bldgs., Inc.
  879 F.2d 10· 2d Cir.· 1989-06-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that allegations of multiple related acts separated in time are sufficient to establish continuity for a civil RICO claim, even without more.
• Furman v. Cirrito
  828 F.2d 898· 2d Cir.· 1987-09-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appellants failed to adequately plead a "pattern of racketeering activity" required for a RICO claim, and affirmed the district court's dismissal.
• Rogers v. Stratton Indus., Inc.
  798 F.2d 913· 6th Cir.· 1986-08-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff's affidavit was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the number of employees, and thus the complaint was properly dismissed.
• Biotics Research Corp. v. Heckler
  710 F.2d 1375· 9th Cir.· 1983-07-05 ·cited 12×
  A regulatory letter from the FDA stating a firm has violated laws and threatening enforcement is not a final agency determination ripe for judicial review.
• Heille v. The City OF ST. Paul
  671 F.2d 1134· 8th Cir.· 1982-02-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the requisite nexus with interstate commerce for his antitrust claims and that his § 1983 claims were also properly dismissed.
• Robin Prods. Co. v. Tomecek
  465 F.2d 1193· 6th Cir.· 1972-08-23 ·cited 12×·via Rule 12(B)(1)
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the declaratory judgment action for lack of jurisdiction without an evidentiary hearing, as a genuine dispute existed regarding whether a charge of infringement could be inferred.
• Zivojinovich v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co., LLC
  445 F. Supp. 2d 1337· M.D. Fla.· 2006-08-01 ·cited 11×·via Rule 12(B)(1)
  The court held that plaintiffs lacked standing for their loss of business revenue claim and dismissed it, but denied motions to dismiss most other federal and state law claims, including a counterclaim for battery.
• Christopher v. Mobil OIL Corp.
  950 F.2d 1209· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-24 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the appellants' Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claims were time-barred because the statute of limitations began to run when the discriminatory nature of the plan amendment was apparent, not when the concealment of a waiver provision was discovered
• Kulick v. Pocono Downs Racing Ass'n
  816 F.2d 895· 3d Cir.· 1987-04-23 ·cited 11×
  A district court cannot use its factual findings from a preliminary injunction hearing regarding state action as conclusive for determining its own subject matter jurisdiction.
• LFC Lessors, Inc. v. Pac. Sewer Maint. Corp.
  739 F.2d 4· 1st Cir.· 1984-07-11 ·cited 11×·via Rule 12(B)(1)
  A forum selection clause stating actions must be brought in the 'courts of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' is interpreted to mean only the state courts, and thus requires dismissal of a federal diversity action.
• Husch v. Szabo Food Serv. Co.
  851 F.2d 999· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the time limitations for satisfying ADEA preconditions should be equitably tolled because the plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to file her complaint in a proper state agency.
• Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. Facetglas, Inc.
  845 F.2d 1250· 4th Cir.· 1988-05-05 ·cited 10×
  Claims related to a wage agreement conditioned on election results are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to primary representational issues, but claims for breach of a separate election agreement are within the court's jurisdiction under § 301.
• Braden L. Albert v. Carovano
  824 F.2d 1333· 2d Cir.· 1987-07-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the students' claims for failure to establish state action, finding sufficient evidence to raise a factual dispute regarding whether the state coerced or significantly encouraged the college's disciplinary actions.
• Smith v. Winter
  782 F.2d 508· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-12 ·cited 10×·via Rule 12(B)(1) Dismissal
  The court held that the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were moot, but the claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against local appellees for violating First Amendment rights was properly stated.
• JM Mech. Corp. v. The United States
  716 F.2d 190· 3d Cir.· 1983-09-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that JM's claims for HUD's negligence in failing to investigate, verify, and secure valid performance bonds were not barred by the FTCA's misrepresentation exception, and thus the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• S&M Brands, Inc. v. State of Ga. EX REL.
  925 F.3d 1198· 11th Cir.· 2019-05-29 ·cited 9×·via Rule 12(B)(1) Dismissal
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of S&M Brands' complaint, finding no plausible claims for Contract Clause or Equal Protection violations and that the state law claim was barred by sovereign immunity.
• In re Banco Santander Securities-Optimal Litigation
  732 F. Supp. 2d 1305· S.D. Fla.· 2010-07-30 ·cited 9×·via Rule 12(B)(1)
  The court granted six defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, finding Ireland to be a more convenient forum.
• Schmidt v. United States
  933 F.2d 639· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-15 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for claims against the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act is subject to equitable tolling and is not a jurisdictional prerequisite.
• LaBOUNTY v. Adler
  933 F.2d 121· 2d Cir.· 1991-05-14 ·cited 9×
  The court held that a pro se prisoner's allegations of racial discrimination in work assignments sufficiently stated an equal protection claim to survive dismissal, but his Eighth Amendment claim was properly dismissed as facially invalid.
• Rhulen Agency, Inc. v. Ala. Ins. Guar. Ass'n
  896 F.2d 674· 2d Cir.· 1990-02-14 ·cited 9×·via Rule 12(B)(1) Dismissal
  The court held that the suit must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the citizenship of the defendant unincorporated associations, which includes New York members, destroys complete diversity.
• Carmichael v. United Techs. Corp.
  835 F.2d 109· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-07 ·cited 9×·via Rule 12(B)(1) Motion To Dismiss
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that Price Waterhouse committed a tort in violation of the law of nations.
• Rosner v. United States
  231 F. Supp. 2d 1202· S.D. Fla.· 2002-11-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that equitable tolling applies to the plaintiffs' claims, making them timely, and that the Administrative Procedure Act waives sovereign immunity for non-monetary relief regarding the international law claim, but the Fifth Amendment claim fails due to extraterritor
• Ortega Trujillo v. Banco Central Del Ecuador
  17 F. Supp. 2d 1340· S.D. Fla.· 1998-08-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the same publication as a defamation claim are barred by Florida's independent tort doctrine, and that defamation claims against foreign instrumentalities are barred by the Foreign Sovereign Immu
• Lampe v. Xouth, Inc.
  952 F.2d 697· 3d Cir.· 1991-12-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the claim against Xouth, Inc. due to the bankruptcy stay, but erred in dismissing the claim against the individual defendant without first determining the sufficiency of service of process.
• Morewitz v. The W. of England Ship Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass'n (luxembourg)
  896 F.2d 495· 11th Cir.· 1990-03-13 ·cited 8×
  The court concurred that the case falls within federal admiralty jurisdiction because the cause of action depends in part on a marine insurance contract.