Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(F) (Motion To Strike)

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

• Thompson v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs. E., LLC
  211 F. Supp. 2d 1345· M.D. Fla.· 2002-04-16 ·cited 154×
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint sufficiently stated claims for negligence and violation of nursing home residents' rights, and that the defendant's motions to dismiss and strike were denied.
• Reyher v. Tr. Annuity Plan for Pilots of Trans World Airlines, Inc.
  796 F. Supp. 579· M.D. Fla.· 1995-04-03 ·cited 126×
• Kennedy v. City OF Cleveland
  797 F.2d 297· 6th Cir.· 1986-07-30 ·cited 94×
  The right to an immediate interlocutory appeal of a denial of qualified immunity is conditioned upon timely filing of a notice of appeal and can be waived by noncompliance with reasonable temporal limitations set by the district court.
• Kenneth F. Hackett & Assocs., Inc. v. GE Cap. Info. Tech. Solutions, Inc.
  744 F. Supp. 2d 1305· S.D. Fla.· 2010-10-08 ·cited 69×
  The court held that a claim for declaratory judgment is not necessarily duplicative of a breach of contract claim, and that a FDUTPA claim can proceed against both the financing company and the distributor for alleged deceptive practices.
• Longhini v. Aventura Mall Venture
  434 F. Supp. 2d 1314· S.D. Fla.· 2019-12-09 ·cited 57×
  The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion to strike affirmative defenses, allowing one defense to be amended and others to be treated as general denials.
• Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc.
  677 F.2d 1045· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-07 ·cited 51×
  The court held that Avondale's antitrust counterclaim was barred by the statute of limitations because the alleged tying arrangement's damages were ascertainable at the time the contract was executed, and subsequent events did not constitute new antitrust violations.
• Harty v. SRA/Palm Trails Plaza, LLC
  755 F. Supp. 2d 1215· S.D. Fla.· 2010-04-21 ·cited 41×
  The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion to compel inspection, limiting the inspection to barriers previously alleged and denying inspection of vacant spaces.
• Ryan v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.
  577 F.2d 298· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-28 ·cited 41×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's orders did not constitute a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor did they meet the requirements for an exception to the finality rule.
• In re Craftmatic Securities Litigation v. Kraftsow
  890 F.2d 628· 3d Cir.· 1989-11-29 ·cited 37×
  The court held that liability under § 12(2) extends to those who solicit purchases, not just immediate sellers, and that allegations of deceptive practices in marketing, if proven, are actionable under federal securities laws, distinguishing them from mere corporate mismanagement
• S.Y. v. Naples Hotel Co.
  476 F. Supp. 3d 1251· M.D. Fla.· 2020-08-05 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Second Amended Complaint sufficiently alleged a claim under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) against Choice Hotels, but granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss and strike.
• Medmarc Cas. Ins. v. Pineiro & Byrd PLLC
  783 F. Supp. 2d 1214· S.D. Fla.· 2011-03-07 ·cited 32×
  A counterclaim for declaratory relief should not be dismissed as redundant if it seeks different relief than the complaint, even if issues overlap, particularly in contract interpretation cases.
• Mitchell v. United States
  2011 WL 2981818· M.D. Fla.· 2021-12-15 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant's second, third, and sixth affirmative defenses should be denied.
• Gerald Lipsky under the Will of Walden Robert Cassotto v. Commonwealth United Corp. (now known as Iota Indus.
  551 F.2d 887· 2d Cir.· 1976-12-01 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the dismissal of the complaint was premature as the materiality of the 'best efforts' clause and the possibility of restoring the status quo presented factual questions requiring evidence. It also found that claims against CUM and the Hudson defendants were im
• Harvey v. Lake Buena Vista Resort, LLC
  568 F. Supp. 2d 1354· M.D. Fla.· 2008-04-22 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the broad force majeure clause in the purchase agreement rendered the seller's obligation to complete the condominium within two years illusory, thus the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act exemption did not apply, entitling the plaintiffs to summary jud
• Martin v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
  310 F.R.D. 678· S.D. Fla.· 2025-08-11 ·cited 19×
  The court denied the motion to strike the defendant's Tenth Affirmative Defense, finding it sufficiently pleaded as a superseding cause defense.
• US Ex Rel. Chabot v. MLU Servs., Inc.
  544 F. Supp. 2d 1326· M.D. Fla.· 2008-02-25 ·cited 19×
  The court held that a motion to dismiss based on an unattached contract is improper if the contract is not central to the claim or if the contract's terms actually support the plaintiff's allegations. Additionally, allegations detailing the plaintiff's investigation are relevant
• Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. for Centennial Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Gemini Mgmt.
  921 F.2d 241· 9th Cir.· 1990-12-21 ·cited 16×
  The D'Oench doctrine applies to bar counterclaims and defenses based on an alleged oral agreement to lend the full amount when that agreement is not clearly and explicitly reflected in the bank's records.
• Story v. Sunshine Foliage World, Inc.
  120 F. Supp. 2d 1027· M.D. Fla.· 2000-10-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA, specifically regarding the existence of a substantially limiting disability or being regarded as such by the employer.
• Jeong Min Kim v. Keenan
  71 F. Supp. 2d 1228· M.D. Fla.· 1999-11-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that it had personal jurisdiction over the defendants and that the complaint stated a claim for professional negligence, denying the motion to dismiss. The court also denied the motion to strike punitive damages claims, pending further Eleventh Circuit review.
• Bush v. Barnett Bank of Pinellas Cnty.
  916 F. Supp. 1244· M.D. Fla.· 1996-02-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff's memorandum in opposition was not a pleading subject to a motion to strike under Rule 12(f), and that factual references to Tracy Campbell were relevant to the discrimination claims. The court also found that the plaintiff had established a prim
• Talbot v. Robert Matthews Distrib. Co.
  961 F.2d 654· 7th Cir.· 1992-04-10 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of claims, holding that the common law fraud claim was preempted by federal labor law and the RICO claim failed to allege a pattern of racketeering activity. The hybrid § 301/fair representation claims were also properly dismissed
• Smith v. Osceola Cnty.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-27 ·cited 13×
  The court held that affirmative defenses, even if mislabeled as such, should not be stricken if they provide fair notice and are not legally insufficient on their face, and that heightened pleading standards do not apply to affirmative defenses.
• Hous. Opportunities Project for Excellence, Inc. v. Key Colony No. 4 Condo. Assoc., Inc.
  510 F. Supp. 2d 1003· S.D. Fla.· 2007-01-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that most claims stated a valid cause of action, but dismissed the retaliation claim and limited the statute of limitations for one plaintiff.
• In re Asbestos Litigation
  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.
• 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.
• Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Access Telecom, Inc.
  642 F. Supp. 2d 1354· S.D. Fla.· 2009-07-24 ·cited 8×
  The court denied all motions to dismiss and strike, finding that the plaintiff adequately pleaded its claims and that subject matter jurisdiction was proper.
• Frio Ice v. SunFruit
  724 F. Supp. 1373· S.D. Fla.· 1989-11-06 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) does not grant private parties jurisdiction to seek injunctive relief, and that a prior injunction requiring the establishment of a trust bank account was improper. The court also found that while individuals
• Jaeckle v. Flagler Coll., Inc.
  2009 WL 4042930· M.D. Fla.· 2020-08-25 ·cited 6×
  Punitive damages are not available in private actions under Title IX, even for retaliation claims.
• Sanz v. Fernandez
  633 F. Supp. 2d 1356· S.D. Fla.· 2009-07-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff adequately alleged that the defendants acted as debt collectors under the FDCPA and FCCPA, and therefore denied the motion to dismiss and strike.
• Mspa Claims 1, LLC v. Covington Specialty Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-04-13 ·cited 5×
  A motion to strike affirmative defenses filed more than 21 days after the responsive pleading is untimely and will be denied, even if the court could consider the defenses sua sponte.
• Airport Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Prevost Car, Inc.
  788 F. Supp. 1203· S.D. Fla.· 1992-04-03 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a motion to strike an amended complaint filed during a pending motion to dismiss is permissible, but the amended complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim under the economic loss rule and lack of privity for the warranty claim.
• 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
• Deatherage v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc.
  2009 WL 5214984· M.D. Fla.· 2020-04-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the motion to strike and the motion to file a reply are both denied as moot.
• Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Active Drywall S., Inc.
  765 F. Supp. 2d 1360· S.D. Fla.· 2011-02-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Lennar's ninth affirmative defense of breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing was legally insufficient and must be stricken.
• Smith v. Osceola Cnty.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-17 ·cited 3×
  The court held that defenses mislabeled as affirmative defenses, which function as specific denials or attack the sufficiency of the complaint, should not be stricken but treated as denials.
• Friedman v. S.C. Ins.
  855 F. Supp. 348· M.D. Fla.· 1994-06-08 ·cited 3×
  Federal law preempts state law remedies for attorneys' fees and emotional distress damages in breach of contract actions involving policies issued under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968.
• Serino v. Broward Cnty.
  2013 WL 5278933· S.D. Fla.· 2025-05-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that affirmative defenses must provide fair notice of the grounds on which they rest, and those lacking factual support or mislabeled as defenses are subject to being stricken.
• U-Smc/DeMaria JV1, LLC v. PAL Env't Safety Corp.
  2008 WL 4642835· M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while allegations regarding a change in defendant's management due to the owner's indictment were relevant, the specific details of the indictment naming other individuals were immaterial and impertinent.
• Pennington v. Centurion Health Inc.
  2023 WL 4763222· S.D. Fla.· 2024-11-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that plaintiff sufficiently pled an individual capacity claim of deliberate indifference against Dr. Santana, but all other claims and allegations were stricken or dismissed.
• Smith v. Brevard Cnty.
  461 F. Supp. 2d 1243· M.D. Fla.· 2006-10-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference under § 1983 against Circles of Care and Sheriff Parker, and denied dismissal for those claims.
• Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty
  984 F.2d 1524· 9th Cir.· 1993-02-02 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's rulings, holding that the striking of certain allegations was proper, summary judgment on counterclaims was correct, and the denial of attorneys' fees was not an abuse of discretion.
• Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. Wesley Fin. Grp., LLC
  2021 WL 1390371· M.D. Fla.· 2023-01-20 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the motion to strike was untimely because it was filed more than 21 days after the answer was served, and no valid extension covered the motion.
• Silberman v. Premier Beauty & Health LLC
  391 F. Supp. 3d 1175· S.D. Fla.· 2021-09-15 ·cited 1×
  The court held that allegations in the amended complaint were not redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous and therefore denied the motion to strike.
• Persivia, Inc. v. Sanitas USA, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-12-15
  The court held that a motion to strike a claim for attorneys' fees is a drastic remedy and should not be granted if there is a potential contractual basis for the fees, even if the motion is procedurally barred.
• United States v. Madison
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-15
  The court held that defendants are not entitled to a jury trial for the government's disgorgement claim, and their affirmative defenses of setoff and unclean hands are stricken.
• Dziadik v. Sheriff Bob Gualtieri
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-13
  The court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice and granted the motion to strike the supplemental second amended complaint.
• De Larrea v. Golden Yacht Charters, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-08-18
  The court recommended granting in part and denying in part the motion to strike affirmative defenses, treating some as denials and upholding others.
• Palm Ave. Hialeah Tr. v. Eisenberg
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-08-13
  The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion to strike affirmative defenses, striking one defense and allowing others to proceed.
• Hatcher v. Fla. Civil Commitment Ctr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-31
  The court held that the plaintiff's official-capacity claims were dismissed, but his individual-capacity failure-to-protect claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as his requests for declaratory and injunctive relief, were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
• Sedona P'rs LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc.
  11th Cir.· 2025-07-25
  The court held that allegations derived from discovery materials can satisfy the heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) at the motion-to-dismiss stage.