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

• Rennie v. Garrett
  896 F.2d 1057· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-26 ·cited 8×·via Rule 12(B)(1) Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
  The administrative deadline for federal employees to bring a retaliation complaint to an EEO counselor should be construed as a statute of limitations, not a jurisdictional prerequisite.
• Moir v. Greater Cleveland Reg'l Transit Auth.
  895 F.2d 266· 6th Cir.· 1990-02-06 ·cited 8×·via Rule 12(B)(1) Dismissal
  The court held that the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) is a political subdivision of the State of Ohio and the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) is a labor organization, both exempt from federal jurisdiction under the NLRA.
• ST. Clair v. City OF Chico
  880 F.2d 199· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellants' claims were not ripe for adjudication because neither the City nor the County had made a final, definitive decision rejecting their proposals for sewer service.
• Reynolds v. Army & AIR Force Exch. Serv.
  846 F.2d 746· Fed. Cir.· 1988-05-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was based on a clearly erroneous factual finding and vacated the judgment.
• Triplett v. Heckler
  767 F.2d 210· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's action was untimely filed, as the Appeals Council's initial denial letter constituted the final decision for limitations purposes, and the subsequent letter reviewing new evidence did not constitute a reopening of the case.
• Mars v. Hanberry
  752 F.2d 254· 6th Cir.· 1985-01-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and that appointment of counsel was not warranted.
• EHM v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.
  732 F.2d 1250· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-29 ·cited 8×
  Amtrak is not subject to the Privacy Act because it is not a federal agency. Amtrak must respond to FOIA requests despite disputed fees, and a dismissal for failure to state a claim regarding publication duties was improper.
• O'Connor v. State OF Nev.
  686 F.2d 749· 9th Cir.· 1982-08-24 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the civil rights actions, finding that judicial and prosecutorial immunity applied to certain defendants and the Eleventh Amendment barred claims against state entities.
• B. R. S. Land Invs. v. United States
  596 F.2d 353· 9th Cir.· 1979-05-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that allegations of 'tacit approval' of a power line construction by federal agencies do not constitute 'major Federal action' requiring an environmental impact statement under NEPA, especially when no official action has been taken.
• Travelers Ins. Co. v. Davis
  490 F.2d 536· 3d Cir.· 1974-01-03 ·cited 8×
  The District Court correctly dismissed Travelers' complaint for declaratory judgment, as the issues were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitrators under Pennsylvania common-law arbitration rules, and federal courts should not interfere with state court proceedings or r
• Emrit v. Universal Music Grp.
  2019 WL 6251365· M.D. Fla.· 2020-08-17 ·cited 7×·via Rule 12(B)(1) Motion To Dismiss
  The court granted the motion to dismiss, finding it lacked personal jurisdiction over Universal Music Group and that the complaint constituted a shotgun pleading.
• Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co.
  256 F. Supp. 2d 1345· S.D. Fla.· 2003-03-28 ·cited 7×
  The court granted in part the motion to dismiss, finding subject matter jurisdiction lacking for ATCA claims against Coca-Cola U.S.A. and Coca-Cola Colombia due to the Bottler's Agreement, but found jurisdiction intertwined with the merits for other defendants.
• Campos v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  32 F. Supp. 2d 1337· S.D. Fla.· 1998-12-09 ·cited 7×·via Rule 12(B)(1) Motion To Dismiss
  The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding it had subject matter jurisdiction and that plaintiffs had not failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and that their claims under the INA, APA, FOIA, and Due Process Clause were cognizable.
• Capitol Leasing Co. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  999 F.2d 188· 7th Cir.· 1993-06-30 ·cited 7×
  The court held that a claimant must file suit within 60 days of a notice of disallowance or the expiration of the 180-day determination period, regardless of whether the claimant received notice.
• Leaf v. Supreme Court OF the State OF Wis.
  979 F.2d 589· 7th Cir.· 1992-11-12 ·cited 7×
  The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district courts from reviewing claims that are inextricably intertwined with state court judgments, but it does not bar claims brought by individuals who were not parties to the state proceedings.
• Bordell v. Gen. Elec. Co.
  922 F.2d 1057· 2d Cir.· 1991-01-11 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the plaintiff lacked standing because he failed to demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury in fact, either actual or threatened.
• Commodities Exp. Co. v. U.S. Customs Serv.
  888 F.2d 431· 6th Cir.· 1989-10-24 ·cited 7×
  The Court of International Trade likely has exclusive jurisdiction over the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), and the district court should consider transferring the case to that court.
• Justina Ghartey v. ST. John's Queens Hosp.
  869 F.2d 160· 2d Cir.· 1989-02-28 ·cited 7×
  A hybrid Section 301/duty of fair representation claim accrues when the arbitration award is issued, not when the union's alleged breach of duty occurs during the arbitration hearing.
• S. River Watershed Alliance v. DeKalb Cnty.
  69 F.4th 809· 11th Cir.· 2023-05-31 ·cited 6×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that a nonprofit environmental organization and its member lacked standing to bring a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act against DeKalb County for wastewater violations because the EPA and Georgia Department of Natural Resources were diligently prose
• Rodriguez v. Diego's Rest., Inc.
  619 F. Supp. 2d 1345· S.D. Fla.· 2009-04-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that individual or enterprise coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is an element of a plaintiff's claim, not a jurisdictional prerequisite, and that parties are bound by their stipulations regarding such coverage.
• Silebi De Donado v. Swacina
  486 F. Supp. 2d 1360· S.D. Fla.· 2007-05-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the 120-day period for adjudicating a naturalization application under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) begins on the date of the applicant's initial interview, not upon completion of background checks.
• Ventrassist Pty Ltd. v. Heartware, Inc.
  377 F. Supp. 2d 1278· S.D. Fla.· 2005-07-15 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the defendant's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, and denying the motion to stay discovery.
• Lussier v. State
  972 F. Supp. 1412· M.D. Fla.· 1997-07-21 ·cited 6×·via Rule 12(B)(1) Motion To Dismiss
  The court held that the Tax Injunction Act bars federal jurisdiction over the challenge to Florida's special parking permit fees because the fees constitute a tax under state law and Florida courts provide an adequate forum.
• Perkins v. Silverstein
  939 F.2d 463· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the plaintiffs' claims because the complaint, even as amended, failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and the denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion.
• Hidahl v. Gilpin Cnty. Dep't OF Soc. Servs.
  938 F.2d 1150· 10th Cir.· 1991-07-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to overcome the defendants' qualified immunity defense, as it did not demonstrate a violation of clearly established constitutional or statutory rights.
• Boyle v. The Governor's Veterans Outreach & Assistance Ctr.
  925 F.2d 71· 3d Cir.· 1991-01-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the dismissal of an employee by a federally funded organization was not state action, and therefore not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because the organization's relationship with the state was too tenuous.
• Taitt v. Chem. Bank
  810 F.2d 29· 2d Cir.· 1987-01-26 ·cited 6×
  A retaliatory discharge claim arising from opposition to a consent decree does not fall within the decree's dispute resolution mechanism and must be heard by the district court.
• Parsons v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc.
  741 F.2d 871· 6th Cir.· 1984-08-28 ·cited 6×
  A private plaintiff seeking to enforce a settlement agreement resulting from a Title VII proceeding must first follow Title VII administrative proceedings before bringing a common law breach of contract claim.
• Tofano v. Supreme Court OF Nev.
  718 F.2d 313· 9th Cir.· 1983-10-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that federal district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over individual challenges to state bar admission decisions and that general challenges to the Nevada Bar's grading procedures fail to state a claim.
• Davis v. Ohio Barge Line, Inc.
  697 F.2d 549· 3d Cir.· 1983-01-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims, primarily concerning wrongful discharge and challenging an arbitrator's award based on a private settlement agreement, did not sufficiently allege a violation of the collective bargaining agreement to establish federal jurisdiction unde
• W. Transp. Co. v. Couzens Warehouse & Distribs., Inc.
  695 F.2d 1033· 7th Cir.· 1982-12-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the oral agreement for pallet exchange was purely intrastate and thus outside the scope of the Interstate Commerce Act.
• Mims v. Olin Kemp
  516 F.2d 21· 4th Cir.· 1975-05-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that dismissing an antitrust complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on insufficient effect on interstate commerce, without proper conversion to a summary judgment motion, was improper.
• Global Marine Exploration, Inc. v. Republic of France
  33 F.4th 1312· 11th Cir.· 2022-05-12 ·cited 5×·via Rule 12(B)(1) Motion To Dismiss
  The Eleventh Circuit held that France's agreement with Florida to recover a shipwreck constituted commercial activity under the FSIA, thus waiving sovereign immunity.
• Lapar v. Potter
  395 F. Supp. 2d 1152· M.D. Fla.· 2005-10-19 ·cited 5×·via Rule 12(B)(1) Motion To Dismiss
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 due to the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine and the exclusivity of the Rehabilitation Act. Rehabilitation Act claims were dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and Florida Civil
• Villeda Aldana v. Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc.
  305 F. Supp. 2d 1285· S.D. Fla.· 2003-12-12 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' allegations of torture, unlawful detention, and denial of the right to organize did not rise to the level of violations of customary international law actionable under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) or Torture Victims Protection Act (TVPA).
• Republican Party OF North Carolina v. Martin
  980 F.2d 943· 4th Cir.· 1992-11-24 ·cited 5×
  The court held that claims of political gerrymandering in judicial elections are justiciable and that the complaint stated a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment for vote dilution, but not under the First Amendment.
• Great Prize, S.A. v. Mariner Shipping PTY.
  967 F.2d 157· 5th Cir.· 1992-07-30 ·cited 5×
  A district court has jurisdiction to dismiss a case on forum non conveniens grounds even when there is a dispute over ownership of attached property, and an arbitration clause does not preclude such a dismissal when all parties are foreign nationals.
• Tr. Co. Bank v. United States Gypsum Co.
  950 F.2d 1144· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-21 ·cited 5×
  The court held that while the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Mississippi statute of repose barred the plaintiff's claims, thus affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment.
• Cook v. Providence Hosp.
  820 F.2d 176· 6th Cir.· 1987-06-01 ·cited 5×·via Rule 12(B)(1) Motion To Dismiss
  The court held that a plaintiff's unsubstantiated denial of receipt of a right-to-sue letter is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact when there is overwhelming evidence of notice, and equitable tolling is not warranted.
• Nazareen Ward v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n
  719 F.2d 311· 9th Cir.· 1983-10-25 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the EEOC's alleged negligence in processing a discrimination complaint is not a reviewable claim under the APA or an implied cause of action, and a conspiracy claim requires factual support beyond mere allegation.
• Johnson v. Duval Cnty. Teachers Credit Union
  507 F. Supp. 307· M.D. Fla.· 1980-11-14 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a plaintiff's failure to obtain a right-to-sue letter due to EEOC inaction does not bar a Title VII claim, but vague allegations of continuous discrimination by a former employee are insufficient for a § 1981 claim.
• Lorna Williams v. Town OF Okoboji
  606 F.2d 812· 8th Cir.· 1979-10-04 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the plaintiff should be allowed to amend her complaint because the additional facts provided, if properly pleaded, could state a claim for relief.
• Reyes v. Garland
  2022 WL 4771858· S.D. Fla.· 2024-10-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a visa refusal under 221(g), even if followed by administrative processing, constitutes a final decision, and there is no non-discretionary duty to re-adjudicate such a refused application under the APA.
• Brucker v. City of Doraville
  38 F.4th 876· 11th Cir.· 2022-06-24 ·cited 4×
  The City's financial reliance on fines and fees does not create an unconstitutional risk of bias in its municipal court judge, prosecutor, police, or code enforcement agents, as their independence and lack of direct financial incentive in individual case outcomes are sufficient.
• Optima Tobacco Corp. v. US Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers, Inc.
  2016 WL 1045838· S.D. Fla.· 2016-03-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that because the manufacturing agreement clearly established UETA's ownership of the copyrights, Optima lacked standing to bring a copyright infringement claim, requiring dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Eldeeb v. Chertoff
  619 F. Supp. 2d 1190· M.D. Fla.· 2007-07-30 ·cited 4×·via Rule 12(B)(1)
  The court held that the jurisdictional bar under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not preclude review of the agency's alleged unreasonable delay in adjudicating an I-485 application, as such delay may render the decision non-discretionary.
• Hsi Ip, Inc. v. Champion Window Mfg. & Supply Co., Inc.
  510 F. Supp. 2d 948· M.D. Fla.· 2007-05-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it has personal jurisdiction over the defendant, venue is proper, and subject matter jurisdiction exists, thus denying the defendant's motion to dismiss or stay the proceedings.
• Wein v. ST. Lucie Cnty.
  461 F. Supp. 2d 1261· S.D. Fla.· 2006-11-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on standing and mootness were denied, as factual issues required resolution at trial.
• Makro Cap. of Am., Inc. v. Ubs Ag
  436 F. Supp. 2d 1342· S.D. Fla.· 2006-06-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a qui tam action is barred if the government possessed the essential information to investigate the case prior to the action's filing, even if the information was obtained through the relator's own efforts.
• Baydar v. Renaissance Cruises, Inc.
  35 F. Supp. 2d 916· S.D. Fla.· 1999-01-08 ·cited 4×·via Rule 12(B)(1)
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient contacts between the defendant and the United States to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction over the Jones Act claim.