-
901 F.2d 624·
7th Cir.·
1990-05-07
·cited 41×
The court held that the complaint failed to plead fraud with the particularity required by Rule 9(b) and lacked sufficient allegations of scienter and duty for aiding and abetting claims.
-
912 F.2d 291·
9th Cir.·
1990-08-16
·cited 22×
An employee wrongfully terminated for refusing to participate in or report alleged racketeering activity lacks standing to sue under RICO because the injury suffered is the termination itself, not the predicate acts of racketeering.
-
861 F.2d 1421·
9th Cir.·
1988-11-23
·cited 18×
A district court may dismiss a pro se in forma pauperis complaint as frivolous only if it lacks any "arguable substance in law or fact," and cannot dismiss based on credibility determinations of the allegations.
-
837 F.2d 712·
5th Cir.·
1988-02-17
·cited 18×
The court held that the word 'and' in the antitying provision of 12 U.S.C.A. § 1464(q)(1) should be interpreted disjunctively, and that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim under subsection (1)(B).
-
710 F.2d 258·
6th Cir.·
1983-06-22
·cited 14×
The court held that a pro se complaint is frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling them to relief, adopting the standard from Estelle v. Gamble. The court found the claims regarding jail conditions and a
-
563 F.2d 707·
5th Cir.·
1977-11-21
·cited 12×
The dissenting judge argues that the Secretary of Labor's regulation, allowing employees to refuse work in imminent danger without penalty, is reasonably related to the Occupational Safety and Health Act's purposes and should not be invalidated based on legislative history.
-
679 F. Supp. 1096·
S.D. Fla.·
1987-07-13
·cited 10×
The court held that plaintiffs' complaints sufficiently stated claims for negligence, strict liability, breach of implied warranty, conspiracy, and punitive damages, and that personal jurisdiction was properly asserted under Florida's long-arm statute.
-
2023 WL 5069482·
M.D. Fla.·
2024-10-11
·cited 6×
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint contained numerous deficiencies, including failure to state a claim, improper citation of statutes, and claims barred by immunity doctrines, requiring a second amended complaint.
-
856 F.2d 1131·
8th Cir.·
1988-09-12
·cited 6×
The court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged parent company liability for negligence and that the grant of summary judgment was premature without adequate discovery.
-
941 F.2d 1015·
10th Cir.·
1991-07-19
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint and that the case should be remanded for further proceedings consistent with supervening authority.
-
919 F.2d 573·
9th Cir.·
1990-11-21
·cited 4×
-
2012 WL 1790319·
N.D. Fla.·
2021-10-12
·cited 1×
The court held that the plaintiff's third amended complaint must be dismissed because it is subject to dismissal as malicious and abusive of the judicial process, and alternatively, for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
-
54 F. Supp. 2d 1289·
M.D. Fla.·
1999-06-08
·cited 1×
The court held that plaintiffs stated a claim under § 1983 for violations of the USHA and LPPPA, but lacked standing as third-party beneficiaries to sue under the ACC.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-18
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible claim for a constitutional violation regarding jail visitation.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-10-02
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim because it contained only vague and conclusory allegations, not meeting federal pleading standards.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-07-07
A pretrial detainee who refuses appointed counsel has no constitutional right to access legal resources for his defense.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-04-24
The court held that a pro se plaintiff's complaint seeking social security benefits must be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, as no exceptions applied.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-03-28
The court held that the prisoner's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted due to various deficiencies, including improper defendants and failure to meet legal standards for constitutional claims.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-01-13
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief under § 1983.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-10-25
The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint sufficiently alleged facts to state claims for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and negligence, thus denying the defendant's motion to dismiss.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-10-16
The court held that the plaintiff adequately stated claims under RLUIPA and the First Amendment, and that he properly exhausted administrative remedies by completing the prison's grievance procedure, thus denying the motion to dismiss.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-07-15
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed because it fails to state a claim and constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-04-30
The court held that a pro se plaintiff's complaint alleging a vast antisemitic conspiracy by a bankruptcy judge was frivolous and dismissed it with prejudice.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-04-15
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-02-15
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted due to insufficient factual allegations.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-11-02
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief under Title VII, the FCRA, or COBRA, warranting dismissal.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-08-09
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint, which was nearly identical to prior futile attempts, failed to state a claim and was dismissed with prejudice.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-06-22
The court held that the complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege diversity jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-06-01
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-11-30
A pro se litigant cannot represent others in a class action, and a complaint alleging denial of access to courts must demonstrate actual injury or hindrance to pursuing a legal claim.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-10-07
The court held that a plaintiff cannot sue an insurer directly for a tort unless a settlement or verdict has been obtained against the tortfeasor, and that the complaint failed to establish diversity jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-09-28
The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights claim was time-barred because it accrued more than four years before the action was filed.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-08-10
The court held that the pro se plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and does not meet pleading requirements.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-03-21
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint seeking economic impact payments was dismissed because the court lacked jurisdiction to determine eligibility and the statutory deadlines for receiving payments had passed.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-01-07
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, granting the plaintiff an opportunity to amend due to failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-12-08
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Bivens or other applicable standards, and dismissed the complaint.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-11-24
The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and must be dismissed.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-10-27
The court held that the pro se plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Florida statutes and the False Claims Act.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-04-28
The Court held that the pro se plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible claim and lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, warranting dismissal without prejudice.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-04-08
The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a claim for tortious interference with a business relationship because a potential lawsuit is not a business relationship and damages based on speculation are not recoverable.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-01-13
The court dismissed the case because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred review of the state court's judgment.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-09-30
The court held that the plaintiff's filing failed to state a claim and lacked subject matter jurisdiction, warranting dismissal.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-09-24
The court held that a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis must state a plausible claim for relief, and this complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to establish the cruise line's notice of the dangerous condition.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-05-13
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need under the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-10-31
The Court dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to allege a basis for federal jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-08-29
The court held that the plaintiff, a civilly committed individual, lacked standing and that the Fair Labor Standards Act does not apply to individuals civilly confined under Florida's SVP Act.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-08-28
The court held that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because it did not adequately differentiate defendants' conduct and failed to allege actual injury for certain claims.
-
435 F. Supp. 2d 1199·
S.D. Fla.·
2006-05-23
The court held that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged knowing violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) and that the DPPA preempts conflicting state law, denying the defendant's motion to dismiss.
-
922 F.2d 112·
2d Cir.·
1990-12-26
The court held that a plaintiff seeking benefits under the Urban Mass Transportation Act's Half-Fare Program must meet the Act's specific definition of 'handicapped person,' not a broader definition from another statute, and that the program's funding source dictates applicable p