Federal Diversity Jurisdiction

195 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Magill v. Gulf & W. Indus., Inc.
  736 F.2d 976· 4th Cir.· 1984-06-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because a material issue of fact existed regarding whether the seller's warranties, made "to the best of his knowledge," accurately reflected the company's financial condition.
• Harris v. Lenora Pollock
  480 F.2d 42· 10th Cir.· 1973-06-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a federal diversity suit for equitable relief concerning estate assets is permissible even with a pending state probate proceeding, as long as the state court does not have actual possession of the disputed property.
• Brainin v. Melikian
  396 F.2d 153· 3d Cir.· 1968-05-03 ·cited 4×
• Robert v. Rafter
  355 F.2d 185· 2d Cir.· 1966-01-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the amount in controversy did not exceed the $10,000 jurisdictional minimum, exclusive of interest and costs.
• Fennell v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.
  177 F.2d 737· 5th Cir.· 1949-11-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that federal jurisdiction was lacking because the amount in controversy did not exceed $3,000, and therefore the appeal must be dismissed.
• Fechheimer Bros. Co. v. Barnwasser
  146 F.2d 974· 6th Cir.· 1945-01-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that individual claims against numerous defendants cannot be aggregated to meet the federal jurisdictional amount requirement in diversity cases.
• First English Lutheran Church of Okla. City v. Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Kansas and Adjacent States
  135 F.2d 701· 10th Cir.· 1943-05-12 ·cited 4×
  A civil court cannot exercise equitable jurisdiction to protect a property right if the plaintiff has no legal or beneficial interest in that property.
• Leslie v. Carnival Corp.
  22 So. 3d 567· Fla. 3d DCA· 2009-11-25 ·cited 3×
  The court, in a concurring opinion, addresses the dissent's arguments regarding the enforceability of a forum-selection clause in cruise ship passenger contracts. The concurrence clarifies that the federal Savings to Suitors Clause does not create an enforceable state court right
• Basil Georges v. Glick
  856 F.2d 971· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-14 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the probate exception, as the suit did not interfere with state probate proceedings.
• Stern v. S. Chester Tube Co.
  378 F.2d 205· 3d Cir.· 1967-05-25 ·cited 3×
  Federal courts cannot issue a writ of mandamus in an original proceeding, even if diversity jurisdiction exists, as such writs must be in aid of existing jurisdiction.
• Action Orthopedics, Inc. v. Techmedica, Inc.
  759 F. Supp. 1566· M.D. Fla.· 1991-03-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that attorney fees awarded under Florida common law for inequitable conduct are considered 'costs' and thus cannot be included in the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction. However, the court found that the plaintiff's tort claim, involving additional de
• Wheel Horse Sales, Inc. v. Spence
  566 F.2d 679· 10th Cir.· 1977-11-30 ·cited 2×
  A defendant's admission of partial liability does not defeat federal diversity jurisdiction if the amount claimed by the plaintiff in good faith exceeds the jurisdictional minimum.
• Broglie v. MacKAY-Smith
  541 F.2d 453· 4th Cir.· 1976-09-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged an amount in controversy to establish federal jurisdiction, even if some damages accrued after filing.
• Ames v. Mengel Co.
  190 F.2d 344· 2d Cir.· 1951-07-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the claims of stockholders in a spurious class action cannot be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement for federal court.
• Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Ohio Edison Co.
  126 F.2d 423· 6th Cir.· 1942-03-12 ·cited 2×
  An insurer subrogated to an insured's rights cannot recover indemnity from a third party where the insured's own primary negligence caused the injury for which the insured was held liable.
• Legg v. Voice Media Grp., Inc.
  849 F. Supp. 2d 1327· S.D. Fla.· 2014-01-03 ·cited 1×
• PHLD P'ship v. Arch Specialty Ins.
  565 F. Supp. 2d 1342· S.D. Fla.· 2008-07-03 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden to establish federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) because it did not demonstrate that the proposed class had more than 100 members.
• Griffith v. Sealtite Corp.
  903 F.2d 495· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-30 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' separate wage claims, even when reduced to a single judgment, could not be aggregated to meet the federal jurisdictional minimum amount because the underlying causes of action were separate and distinct.
• Gunter v. Ago Intern. BV
  533 F. Supp. 86· N.D. Fla.· 1981-12-03 ·cited 1×
  Florida's Insurance Commissioner sought to enjoin a tender offer under the Florida Insurance Holding Company Act, but the federal district court held that the Williams Act preempts the Florida Act because the state law's requirement for pre-commencement approval and a sixty-day f
• Blue Sky Prop. Dev. & Mgmt., LLC v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-26
  The court granted the motion to remand because the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving complete diversity of citizenship.
• Timeshares Direct, Inc. v. Watstein Terepka, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-10-23
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, as the defendant's own attorney's fees incurred in litigating the fee dispute could not be counted towards the amount in controversy from the plaintiff's perspective. Therefore,
• Machin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-10-01
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion to remand is granted because the amount in controversy does not meet the federal subject matter jurisdiction threshold.
• Luzinski v. Coverys Specialty Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-02
  The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was untimely because the initial pleading did not establish federal jurisdiction and subsequent documents did not unambiguously establish removability within the statutory time limits.
• DeLiso v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-03
  The court held that State Farm provided sufficient evidence to establish the amount in controversy for removal, but must provide further evidence regarding the plaintiff's citizenship.
• Rothschild v. Kohl's Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-23
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction and was inadequately pleaded, warranting dismissal.
• Timko v. Pete Hunter Constr., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-17
  The court held that the defendants failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction, requiring remand to state court.
• Ford v. Niemi
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-01-02
  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
• Sullivan v. Joudrey
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-16
  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.
• Epic Sports & Ent., Inc. v. Triller Hold Co LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-08-13
  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
• Save Our Allies, LLC v. Gustin
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-08-12
  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.
• Kwit v. Walgreen Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-06-13
  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.
• Tutwiler v. Walgreen Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-06-13
  Retailer-defendants are not fraudulently joined when a state court dismissal on preemption grounds remains appealable and the preemption issue presents reasonable legal debate.
• Vogel v. Walgreen Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-06-13
  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.
• Bedgood v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-04-22
  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.
• Davis v. RTM Operating Co., LLC
  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.
• Martinez-Lopez v. Bowden
  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.
• Koach v. Maynard
  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.
• Lima v. Howard
  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.
• Blue Int'l Grp., Inc. v. Am. Zurich Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-20
  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.
• Simpson v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-15
  The court held that the defendant met its burden to establish the jurisdictional amount for removal, thus denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
• Alday v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-11-16
  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.
• Gayatri Props. LLC v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-11-07
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction because it did not demonstrate the citizenship of all members of the plaintiff LLC.
• US Thrillrides, LLC v. Intamin Amusement Rides Int. Corp. Est.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-09-12
  The court held that boilerplate objections are without merit and that a defendant cannot unilaterally stay discovery based on an alleged need for trade secret identification without filing a proper motion.
• Mager v. Katz
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-05-21
  The court held that the defendants failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence, as the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at the time of removal.
• Mathieus v. Nat'l Specialty Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-05-02
  The court held that the amount in controversy was satisfied at the time of removal, and thus denied the motion to remand.
• Everett J Prescott Inc v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-01-04
  The court held that a rejected settlement offer, even if a check was issued, does not reduce the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction purposes.
• Paschal v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-11-16
  The amount in controversy for determining federal diversity jurisdiction in a suit seeking to void a mortgage and quiet title is the value of the underlying property, not the face value of the mortgage.
• Ellis v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-08-18
  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 granting the plaintiff's motion to remand.
• Calhoun v. Allstate & Cas. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-09-24
  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.
• SFR Servs., LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-07-29
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction by not properly pleading the citizenship of the plaintiff LLC.