Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Failure To State A Claim)

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

• Bennett v. Berg
  710 F.2d 1361· 8th Cir.· 1983-07-11 ·cited 81×
  The court held that plaintiffs have standing to assert RICO civil remedies and have sufficiently alleged an enterprise distinct from the pattern of racketeering, but affirmed dismissal of the equitable relief claim.
• Kadar Corp. v. Milbury
  549 F.2d 230· 1st Cir.· 1977-02-15 ·cited 72×
  The court held that a complaint must allege specific overt acts to support claims of conspiracy and civil rights violations, and that causes of action accrue at the time of invasion, not the last overt act.
• Brandenburg v. Seidel
  859 F.2d 1179· 4th Cir.· 1988-10-11 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a sufficient causal connection between the alleged RICO predicate acts of the MSSIC defendants and their claimed injuries, thus affirming dismissal of the RICO claim against them.
• Sterling Usher v. City OF LOS Angeles
  828 F.2d 556· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-21 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for a § 1983 claim arising before Wilson v. Garcia should be the earlier of the pre-Wilson period or the post-Wilson period commencing with the decision. It also held that the plaintiff adequately pleaded claims under § 1985 and for
• Sherman v. Burke Contracting, Inc.
  891 F.2d 1527· 11th Cir.· 1990-01-16 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII does not imply a cause of action for money damages against former employers for retaliatory blacklisting.
• Decker v. Massey-Ferguson
  681 F.2d 111· 2d Cir.· 1982-06-03 ·cited 53×
  The court held that while most of the plaintiff's claims failed to meet the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b), the claim regarding undisclosed, allegedly wrongful payments by foreign subsidiaries was sufficiently pleaded to withstand dismissal.
• George C. Frey Ready-Mixed Concrete, Inc. v. Pine Hill Concrete MIX Corp.
  554 F.2d 551· 2d Cir.· 1977-05-06 ·cited 53×
  The court held that dismissal and summary judgment were premature because discovery was incomplete and genuine issues of material fact remained.
• Luce v. Edelstein
  802 F.2d 49· 2d Cir.· 1986-09-26 ·cited 49×
  The court held that while some fraud allegations were insufficiently pleaded, others, particularly those concerning specific broken promises in the Offering Memorandum, stated a claim under Section 10(b). The court also found that dismissal without leave to amend was an abuse of
• Gibson v. United States
  457 F.2d 1391· 3d Cir.· 1972-03-30 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act's assault and battery exception does not bar claims where the injury is a foreseeable consequence of the government's negligence in failing to protect against such acts, and that the discretionary function exception was not properly
• Gerard and Gemma Brault v. Town OF Milton
  527 F.2d 730· 2d Cir.· 1975-02-24 ·cited 42×
• The Conn. Nat'l Bank v. Fluor Corp. & Fluor Acquisition Corp.
  808 F.2d 957· 2d Cir.· 1987-01-05 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the Williams Act claim for failure to plead scienter with particularity, but erred in dismissing the state law claims for lack of pendent jurisdiction when diversity jurisdiction was also alleged.
• Frigitemp Corp. v. Fin. Dynamics Fund, Inc.
  524 F.2d 275· 2d Cir.· 1975-10-14 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the defendants, as purchasers of a debenture, owed no fiduciary duty to the corporation under New York law and that the corporation and its shareholders lacked standing or failed to state a claim under federal securities laws for alleged non-disclosure of mark
• Shockley v. Jones
  823 F.2d 1068· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-26 ·cited 28×
  The court held that while the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment, and therefore affirmed the judgment.
• Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co.
  651 F.2d 671· 9th Cir.· 1981-07-23 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 8(e).
• Carter v. W. Reserve Psychiatric Habilitation Ctr.
  767 F.2d 270· 6th Cir.· 1985-07-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that while Wade's pre-termination hearing was constitutionally sufficient, his post-termination hearing claim requires further factual determination. Other appellants' claims were dismissed for failure to establish cognizable property or liberty interests.
• Anderson v. Coughlin
  700 F.2d 37· 2d Cir.· 1983-01-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the complaint was insufficient to survive a 12(b)(6) motion because it lacked specific factual allegations and failed to provide notice of the claim. However, the failure to provide notice that the motion would be treated as a summary judgment was harmless.
• Stern v. Leucadia Nat'l Corp.
  844 F.2d 997· 2d Cir.· 1988-04-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the amended complaint failed to comply with Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standards for fraud, but that sanctions under Rule 11 were improperly awarded because the plaintiff had leave to replead and the amended complaint, while insufficient, was not patently
• Balwant Singh Chahal v. Paine Webber Inc.
  725 F.2d 20· 2d Cir.· 1984-01-04 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the complaint sufficiently pleaded the elements of a witness intimidation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) and that material factual issues precluded summary judgment.
• Ayatollah Syed M. J. Iqbal Jafree v. Barber
  689 F.2d 640· 7th Cir.· 1982-07-12 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the plaintiff's claims for failure to state a claim and denied leave to amend, as the mandamus claim was legally impossible and the civil rights claims lacked factual allegations of racial discrimination.
• D.P. Enters. v. Bucks Cnty. Cmty. Coll.
  725 F.2d 943· 3d Cir.· 1984-01-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint based on governmental immunity, as the plaintiffs' allegations, if true, could fall under an exception to the immunity statute.
• Bryan v. Stillwater Bd. OF Realtors
  578 F.2d 1319· 10th Cir.· 1977-07-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations did not establish a conspiracy in restraint of interstate commerce or an unlawful monopoly actionable under the federal antitrust laws, and thus the complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim and lack of subject m
• Weinberger v. Retail Credit Co.
  498 F.2d 552· 4th Cir.· 1974-05-29 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, and the allegations of fraudulent concealment were insufficient to toll those statutes.
• Mrs. Grace Carrigan v. Sunland-Tujunga Tel. Co. & State of Cal.
  263 F.2d 568· 9th Cir.· 1959-01-28 ·cited 22×
  A district court judge can dismiss a case for failure to state a claim, even if it involves a request for an injunction against a state statute, without convening a three-judge court if no substantial federal question is presented.
• Griggs v. Hinds Junior Coll.
  563 F.2d 179· 5th Cir.· 1977-11-17 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to grant leave to amend the complaint.
• Curl v. Reavis
  740 F.2d 1323· 4th Cir.· 1984-08-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a deputy sheriff can be an employee under Title VII, and that a plaintiff who accepted one denied position did not waive her right to be instated in another denied position based on a separate violation.
• Michaels Bldg. Co. v. Ameritrust Co., N.A.
  848 F.2d 674· 6th Cir.· 1988-05-17 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the fraud and antitrust claims for failure to plead with particularity, but correctly dismissed the misjoined defendant.
• Hepperle v. Johnston
  544 F.2d 201· 5th Cir.· 1976-12-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court improperly dismissed the plaintiff's claims for failure to state a cause of action, as the plaintiff might be able to prove facts supporting his claims, particularly regarding subsequent publications of libelous material.
• Haywood Williams, Jr. v. Meese
  926 F.2d 994· 10th Cir.· 1991-02-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a prisoner's claims of discrimination in job assignments and retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights stated a claim for relief, while claims regarding property deprivation and inadequate grievance procedures were properly dismissed.
• Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. v. MidSouth Cap., Inc.
  669 F. Supp. 2d 1353· S.D. Fla.· 2009-11-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that venue was improper in the Southern District of Florida because the defendants' alleged tortious conduct did not occur there, and ordered the case transferred to the Northern District of Georgia.
• Devaughn E. Williams v. First Union Nat'l Bank OF N.C.
  920 F.2d 232· 4th Cir.· 1990-12-06 ·cited 14×
  Discriminatory discharge and retaliation claims are not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of § 1981 in Patterson v. McLean Credit Union applies retroactively.
• Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Ferre
  636 F. Supp. 970· S.D. Fla.· 1985-08-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction over the defendant's counterclaim and that each count of the counterclaim failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• Miscellaneous Serv. Workers v. Philco-Ford Corp.
  661 F.2d 776· 9th Cir.· 1981-11-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Service Contract Act does not create a private right of action for employees against their employers, and that the state wage and hour claims were properly dismissed for failure to state a claim.
• Joyce Thomas, R.N. v. Norton Younglove
  545 F.2d 1171· 9th Cir.· 1976-10-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the dismissal of the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action was premature because the complaint stated a potentially actionable claim and the defendants' immunity defenses raised factual issues not resolvable at the pleading stage.
• Ronzani v. Sanofi S.A.
  899 F.2d 195· 2d Cir.· 1990-03-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that dismissing a complaint without leave to amend, when leave was offered and no justifying reason was given, constitutes an abuse of discretion.
• Madden v. Gluck
  815 F.2d 1163· 8th Cir.· 1987-02-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that allegations of a single fraudulent scheme, even if comprising multiple fraudulent acts, do not satisfy the 'pattern of racketeering activity' requirement for a RICO claim.
• Bolding v. Austin
  575 F.2d 461· 4th Cir.· 1978-04-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the complaint, which sought to have the federal district court assume supervision of the entire state prison system, failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and should have been dismissed.
• In re The Glacier BAY. KEE Leasing Co. v. Merrill McGAHAN
  944 F.2d 577· 9th Cir.· 1991-09-13 ·cited 11×
  The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act (TAPAA) implicitly repealed the Limitation of Vessel Owner's Liability Act for vessels transporting trans-Alaska pipeline oil because the two statutes are in irreconcilable conflict.
• Boyer v. Snap-On Tools Corp.
  913 F.2d 108· 3d Cir.· 1990-09-05 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the motion to remand because it improperly considered the merits of the release defense, which was common to both diverse and non-diverse defendants, in determining fraudulent joinder.
• Frazier v. Coughlin
  850 F.2d 129· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to consider all of the plaintiff's claims when dismissing the complaint, and that claims based on rules not properly filed may be valid if the plaintiff lacked notice.
• Eades v. Thompson
  823 F.2d 1055· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff stated a claim under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, but not under the Fourteenth Amendment for due process or equal protection. The court also found that denying the plaintiff's third request to amend h
• Cnty. OF Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co.
  728 F.2d 52· 2d Cir.· 1984-01-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint because the ratepayers' claims were preempted by federal law regarding nuclear safety and operation, and by state law regarding utility ratemaking.
• Abram Bryant v. Cal. Brewers Ass'n
  585 F.2d 421· 9th Cir.· 1978-11-03 ·cited 10×
• Joyce v. Joyce Beverages, Inc.
  571 F.2d 703· 2d Cir.· 1978-01-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the omissions and representations in the information statement were not sufficiently material to support a 10b-5 claim.
• Patterson v. Ellis C. MacDOUGALL
  506 F.2d 1· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the pro se complaint sua sponte, as it stated a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that dismissal for failure to join an indispensable party under Rule 19(b) was improper.
• Sarter v. Mays
  491 F.2d 675· 5th Cir.· 1974-03-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court improperly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under the Consumer Credit Protection Act without sufficient factual development.
• Invs. Syndicate OF Am., Inc. v. The City OF Indian Rocks Beach
  434 F.2d 871· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-12 ·cited 10×
  A city's motion to dismiss a bondholder's complaint for failure to state a claim was improperly granted, as the complaint sufficiently alleged breach of contract, breach of trust, and equitable estoppel.
• Durso v. Summer Brook Preserve Homeowners Ass'n
  641 F. Supp. 2d 1256· M.D. Fla.· 2008-06-23 ·cited 9×
  The court granted motions to strike a pleading that did not comply with court orders and dismissed claims for violation of the FDCPA, RICO, and a criminal statute lacking civil liability.
• Auto-Owners Ins. v. Ace Elec. Serv., Inc.
  648 F. Supp. 2d 1371· M.D. Fla.· 2009-08-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the City's third-party complaints against Dickens and Byrne were procedurally proper, and that the City stated claims for common law indemnity, contractual indemnity, and malpractice against Dickens.
• Buckey v. Cnty. OF LOS Angeles
  968 F.2d 791· 9th Cir.· 1992-02-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff should be allowed to amend her complaint to potentially state a claim for conspiracy under color of state law to deny due process and equal protection.
• Burda v. M. Ecker Co.
  954 F.2d 434· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the worker's claim challenging federal tax withholding was properly removed to federal court and dismissed for failure to state a claim, but remanded the issue of sanctions for reconsideration.