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

• Jackson v. State OF Ariz.
  885 F.2d 639· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-18 ·cited 8×
• FRY Bros. Corp. v. The Dep't OF Hous. & Urban Dev.
  614 F.2d 732· 10th Cir.· 1980-02-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a justiciable claim and that the Administrative Procedure Act does not create an independent basis for jurisdiction.
• Super Tire Eng'g Co. v. McCORKLE
  469 F.2d 911· 3d Cir.· 1972-11-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the case was not moot because the collective bargaining relationship is a continuing one, and the availability of state welfare benefits to strikers could still affect that relationship.
• Jones v. The State OF Ga.
  725 F.2d 622· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-21 ·cited 7×
  A probationary state employee terminated during their working test period, whose complaints did not involve matters of legitimate public concern and whose termination was not publicly disclosed, has no property or liberty interest infringed and thus no claim under the First, Fift
• Audio Enters. v. B & W Loudspeakers OF Am.
  957 F.2d 406· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that service of process was insufficient for both defendants because the required acknowledgment of service was not filed, divesting the district court of personal jurisdiction.
• Palm Beach Cnty. Env't Coal. v. Florida
  651 F. Supp. 2d 1328· S.D. Fla.· 2009-07-27 ·cited 5×
  The court granted motions to dismiss, finding that sovereign immunity barred federal and state claims against state defendants, and that federal defendants were not properly served and failed to provide required notice for certain claims.
• Fla. Dept. Ins. v. Debenture Guar
  921 F. Supp. 750· M.D. Fla.· 1996-04-08 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to plead fraud with particularity and for failure to state a claim was without merit, denying the motion.
• Ulric Paul Giddings v. Chandler
  979 F.2d 1104· 5th Cir.· 1992-12-28 ·cited 5×
  A criminal alien does not have standing to compel the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to commence deportation proceedings under the Mandamus Act or the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because they do not fall within the 'zone of interest' of the relevant statute.
• Guidry v. Bank OF LaPLACE
  954 F.2d 278· 5th Cir.· 1992-02-25 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a bank account is not a RICO enterprise and that the plaintiff's investment scheme did not involve securities. It affirmed dismissal of most state law claims but reversed dismissal of some negligence claims, remanding them without prejudice.
• Brown v. Seebach
  763 F. Supp. 574· S.D. Fla.· 1991-04-12 ·cited 5×
  The court held that personal jurisdiction was proper over the defendant driver under Florida's long-arm statute and due process, and that claims for negligent supervision, entrustment, and beneficial ownership were sufficiently pleaded, but claims for imputed parental liability u
• Festa v. Local 3 Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers
  905 F.2d 35· 2d Cir.· 1990-06-04 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the dismissal of the union claim with prejudice was improper, and modified the judgment to allow the plaintiff to file an amended complaint against both defendants.
• Blake v. Dierdorff
  856 F.2d 1365· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-08 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a single scheme can satisfy RICO's pattern requirement, but affirmed dismissal for defendants who did not allege sufficient predicate acts or failed to plead fraud with particularity.
• Olen C. Faulk v. City OF Orlando
  731 F.2d 787· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-07 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a pro se plaintiff's complaint, when construed liberally and considered in its entirety, stated claims against the City for racial discrimination under Title VII and Section 1981, but not against individual defendants.
• Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Catellus Dev. Corp.
  976 F.2d 1338· 9th Cir.· 1992-10-08 ·cited 4×
  A party can be held liable under CERCLA as an 'operator' if they had authority to control the cause of contamination during disposal, and liability as a 'transporter' can extend to on-site dispersal of hazardous substances.
• Sweazea v. Mo. Bd. OF Prob. & Parole
  742 F.2d 482· 8th Cir.· 1984-08-31 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the inmate failed to state a claim for due process or equal protection violations regarding his parole decision.
• Kenneth Leventhal & Co. v. Joyner Wholesale Co.
  736 F.2d 29· 2d Cir.· 1984-05-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Leventhal's third-party complaint was properly dismissed because the alleged liability of the third-party defendants was not dependent on or related to the main claim against Leventhal.
• Holder v. Nelson
  514 F.2d 1091· 9th Cir.· 1975-04-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action and denying the request for a three-judge court, as the claims presented were not insubstantial.
• Knudsen v. The Torrington Co.
  254 F.2d 283· 2d Cir.· 1958-04-18 ·cited 4×
  A sales agency contract, though personal, is delegable if the principal impliedly assented to changes in the business organization or personnel, and the surviving entity provides substantially what was bargained for.
• Wash. Bldg. Realty Corp. v. Peoples Drug Stores, Inc.
  161 F.2d 879· D.C. Cir.· 1947-04-07 ·cited 4×
  A cross-claim must state a claim for relief, not merely allege facts that constitute a defense.
• In re Catalina Mktg. Corp. Sec. Litig.
  390 F. Supp. 2d 1110· M.D. Fla.· 2005-03-31 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' allegations of scienter and fraud were sufficiently particular to survive a motion to dismiss under the PSLRA and Rule 9(b).
• Wexler v. Lepore
  319 F. Supp. 2d 1354· S.D. Fla.· 2004-05-24 ·cited 3×
  The court held that Younger abstention applies, requiring dismissal of the federal complaint due to ongoing state proceedings concerning the same issues.
• Moore v. State OF Ind.
  999 F.2d 1125· 7th Cir.· 1993-07-20 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint because the proposed amendments would be futile.
• Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp.
  929 F.2d 1515· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-11 ·cited 3×
  A party does not waive the right to appeal a dismissal of a claim if the claim was already dismissed on its merits and repleading it would be futile. The court also held that the actions of the appellee did not breach an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Oklah
• In re Chiquita Brands Int'l, Inc.
  792 F. Supp. 2d 1301· S.D. Fla.· 2011-06-03 ·cited 2×
  The court found that the Anti-Terrorism Act does not preclude Alien Tort Statute claims for terrorism by non-U.S. nationals, and that the ATS may recognize claims for terrorism if they meet specific international law criteria.
• Carroll Olson v. Hart
  965 F.2d 940· 10th Cir.· 1992-06-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a pro se litigant's complaint, even if styled as a mandamus petition, could be construed as a habeas corpus petition or a Section 1983 claim for deprivation of due process rights, and thus should not have been dismissed on abstention grounds.
• River City Mkts., Inc. v. Fleming Foods W., Inc.
  960 F.2d 1458· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-03 ·cited 2×
  Although the district court erred in dismissing the RICO claims for failure to plead an enterprise, the appellate court affirms the dismissal because the defendants were entitled to summary judgment.
• Berning v. Gooding
  820 F.2d 1550· 9th Cir.· 1987-07-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff has no available remedy under the Clayton Act for the alleged price-fixing scheme by members of the Hop Administrative Committee because the Secretary of Agriculture ultimately sets the marketing policy.
• Hank Purcell, Jr. v. Com. Tom Coughlin
  790 F.2d 263· 2d Cir.· 1986-05-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the complaint adequately stated causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for interference with mail and retaliation for litigation.
• The Genesee Brewing Co., Inc. v. Vill. OF Sodus Point
  733 F.2d 258· 2d Cir.· 1984-05-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the village was not required to refund payments made under a state law adopted pursuant to a repealed federal provision, as no federal right to such refunds was created.
• Feick v. Fleener
  653 F.2d 69· 2d Cir.· 1981-06-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the powers of attorney did not authorize the retention of counsel for the annulment proceedings, and the appellee's letter did not constitute a binding agreement or promise to pay legal fees.
• Hane Cypress McLeaish v. The Sch. Dist. of Escambia Cnty.
  2017 WL 1153895· N.D. Fla.· 2025-12-08 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies for some claims and failed to state a claim for others, including sex discrimination and retaliation.
• Carnahan v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n
  2020 WL 1166721· S.D. Fla.· 2025-11-14 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the Second Amended Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice because it constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading and fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction for claims against the SEC, and the Bivens claims against individual defendants are unav
• Guzman v. Irmadan, Inc.
  211 F.R.D. 71· S.D. Fla.· 2008-04-10 ·cited 1×
• Sounds of Serv. Radio v. Islamorada
  344 F. Supp. 2d 1376· S.D. Fla.· 2004-11-05 ·cited 1×
  Sounds of Service Radio sought a preliminary injunction to stop state court proceedings between itself and G & G Trading, Inc., but the federal district court denied the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice because the federal court lacked authority under the Anti-Injunct
• Henry v. Robey-Barber Ins. Servs. Corp.
  777 F. Supp. 1554· M.D. Fla.· 1991-10-17 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint, as pled, failed to establish that the insurance benefits were not provided under an employee benefit plan, and therefore the causes of action were preempted by ERISA.
• Jane Doe (J.T.A.) v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-09
  The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the Franchisee Defendant and that venue was improper in New Jersey, necessitating a transfer to the Middle District of Florida.
• Hutcheson v. U.S. Dep't of Veteran Affairs
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-12
  The court held that the plaintiffs' federal employment claims must be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and the state law claims are dismissed for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.
• Kinner v. Reed
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-08
  Claims against supervisory defendants Dixon and UCI Warden are dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim, while claims against other officers will proceed.
• Bernard v. Automax
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-10-24
  The court recommended dismissal of the action without prejudice because the complaint failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction and did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• Series 15-09-321 v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-09-29
  The court held that the plaintiff has standing for claims related to the Medicare Secondary Payer Act and breach of contract, but lacks standing for claims of fraudulent concealment and declaratory judgment based on excluded claims data.
• Burgess v. Pride Transp.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-08-14
  The court held that while venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida, the case should be transferred to the District of Utah for the convenience of the parties and witnesses. Alternatively, the court recommended dismissal for shotgun pleading and failure to state a claim
• Camarao v. State of N.J.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-07-09
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims against the New Jersey defendants were time-barred and that venue was improper for the remaining claims, warranting transfer to the Southern District of Florida.
• Portes v. City of Doral
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-07-03
  In Portes v. City of Doral, a federal district court granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss brought by the city, individual police officers, and a security company in response to claims arising from the disputed arrest of Juan Jose Portes Jr. at his apartment compl
• Button v. McCawley
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-05-28
  The court held that the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint was denied because amendment would be futile, as all proposed claims were subject to dismissal.
• Boom Funded, LLC v. Aeva, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-03-11
  The court held that affirmative defenses directed at unpled claims or that are merely conclusory should be stricken, while those that function as denials should be treated as such rather than stricken.
• Marrow v. E. R. Carpenter Co., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-04
  The court held that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged standing and stated a claim for relief regarding deficiencies in the COBRA notice.
• Mack v. City of Marianna
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-12-13
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the city or the police captain, and recommended declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
• Hart v. Warden Blackwater River Correctional Facility
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-10-09
  A prisoner who is a three-striker must pay the filing fee at the time of filing and cannot proceed IFP unless under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
• Gonzalez v. Cano Health, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-10-04
  A securities fraud class action against executives of Cano Health, Inc., a Medicare-focused primary care company, was dismissed for failure to adequately plead a strong inference of scienter as required by securities law, despite allegations that the company prematurely recognize
• Horowitz v. Emerald Nutraceuticals, LLC.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-24
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish personal jurisdiction over the Zupnicks and failed to properly allege subject-matter jurisdiction and venue for Specialty Rx, leading to dismissal of the claims against them.