-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-02-22
A Florida district court denied motions to dismiss filed by hotel franchisor Wyndham Hotels & Resorts and franchisee Rist Properties in a sex trafficking case brought by victim S.Y., who alleged she was victimized at a Ramada Hotel from 2015 to 2016. The court found that the plai
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-02-17
The court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss counterclaims and strike affirmative defenses, allowing the Lawyer Defendants one final opportunity to amend their pleadings.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-02-16
Sex trafficking victim S.Y. sued Wyndham Hotels & Resorts and various Days Inn franchisees, alleging they knowingly benefited from sex trafficking that occurred at the hotel between 2013 and 2016 through negligent operations and failure to prevent foreseeable criminal activity. T
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-02-16
The court held that the negligence counterclaim is barred by Florida's independent tort doctrine because the alleged duty arises from the contract, and that the motion to strike the affirmative defense is denied as it raises substantial legal questions.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-02-02
An insurance company regulated by the Department of Financial Services is statutorily exempt from liability under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, regardless of the specific activity at issue.
-
Del. Ch.·
2021-01-04
The Court of Chancery granted Charter's motion to strike Optymyze's notice of dismissal, finding it ineffective. The court then granted Charter's motion to dismiss Optymyze's counterclaims with prejudice under Rule 41(b) due to pervasive litigation misconduct. Finally, the court
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-12-09
The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss extra-contractual claims for attorney fees and costs, and deemed the claim for interest withdrawn.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-12-03
The court held that affirmative defenses must provide fair notice of the grounds on which they rest and cannot be merely conclusory restatements of statutory language.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-11-12
The court held that most of the defendant's affirmative defenses were sufficiently pled to provide notice and should not be stricken, while two defenses were treated as denials rather than affirmative defenses.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-11-04
The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss and motion to strike, finding that the EEOC's allegations of retaliation were sufficient and that the harassment allegations provided relevant background.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-11-04
The court held that affirmative defenses must provide fair notice of the defense and the grounds upon which it rests, and are not subject to the heightened pleading standard of Twombly/Iqbal. Certain defenses were stricken as legally insufficient or irrelevant.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-10-19
The court denied defendants' motions to seal and strike portions of the plaintiff's complaints, finding they failed to demonstrate good cause for sealing or that the challenged allegations lacked relation to the controversy.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-10-13
A retaliation claim under Title VII is not procedurally barred if it reasonably grows out of the allegations in the EEOC charge, even if the retaliation box is not checked. Furthermore, allegations of discriminatory treatment and complaints about that treatment, followed by termi
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-08-24
The court denied the defendants' motion to strike, stay, and dismiss the amended complaint, finding the plaintiffs' claims for trademark infringement and unfair competition to be facially plausible.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-07-06
The court held that the Sixth Amended Complaint did not violate Rule 41(b) and that allegations in Count III, while potentially reflecting negatively on Naples HMA, LLC, were relevant to the factual background of the Section 1981 claim and thus not subject to being stricken.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-07-06
The court held that the defendant's affirmative defenses of waiver, laches, and statute of limitations were sufficiently pleaded to provide fair notice and should not be stricken.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-18
The court held that the challenged paragraphs were not immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous and therefore denied the motion to strike.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-16
The court held that the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint, including claims for negligence, gross negligence, breach of contract, and breach of implied warranty of workmanlike service, should be denied.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-08
The court held that the defendants' affirmative defenses were sufficiently specific to comply with federal pleading standards and were not shotgun allegations.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-05-26
The court held that the defendant official was not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage, but the municipality was not liable under Monell because the alleged violation was a single incident, not a policy or custom.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-05-11
The court held that the counterclaims sufficiently alleged facts to put the plaintiff on notice of the claims against it and that the challenged allegations were relevant and not scandalous, thus denying the motion to dismiss and strike.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-05-04
A motion to strike affirmative defenses is denied if the defenses are not frivolous or clearly invalid as a matter of law, and the movant fails to show prejudice.
-
2014 WL 34·
S.D. Fla.·
2020-04-30
The court held that while Julio Moreiras is an indispensable party, dismissal is inappropriate because joinder is feasible, and the motion to strike attorney's fees is premature.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-04-21
The court denied Plaintiff's motion to strike eleven affirmative defenses, treating some as specific denials and finding others provided sufficient notice.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-04-20
A jury trial waiver in a mortgage agreement is enforceable if it is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, and such a waiver can be stricken from a complaint at any time.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-04-15
The court held that the First Amended Complaint filed by HPD Advisors was improper because HPD failed to properly substitute or intervene as a party, and thus the complaint was stricken.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-04-08
The court held that affirmative defenses are subject to the heightened pleading standard of Twombly and Iqbal, and granted the motion to strike because the defendant's affirmative defenses were vague, conclusory, and lacked factual support.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-04-08
The court held that affirmative defenses are not subject to the heightened pleading standard of Twombly and will only be stricken if insufficient as a matter of law.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-03-31
The court held that allegations concerning a non-party are relevant if they explain the discovery of misconduct, and that claims for unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel are not premature when the defendant denies the existence of an express contract.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-03-26
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant's affirmative defenses, finding they were sufficiently plead to provide notice.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-03-25
The court held that the amended complaint failed to state sufficient factual allegations for FLSA claims and that state law claims would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction after federal claims were dismissed.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-03-25
The court held that a motion to dismiss a claim for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act need not be resolved at the outset of the case and should not be stricken under Rule 12(f).
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-03-17
The court held that the first and fourth affirmative defenses were insufficient as a matter of law and granted Publix's motion to strike them, while denying the motion to strike the seventh affirmative defense.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-03-05
The court held that the plaintiff adequately alleged standing and stated claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel, but dismissed the alter ego claim as an independent cause of action.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-01-30
The court held that a motion to strike affirmative defenses should be denied if the plaintiff failed to confer with opposing counsel and if the defenses are essentially denials that provide sufficient notice.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-01-30
The court held that while a promotion denial can be part of a sexual harassment claim, the plaintiff failed to administratively exhaust this specific claim with the EEOC. However, the court declined to strike the allegations as they provided useful background.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-12-23
The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant's affirmative defenses, striking defenses related to failure to state a claim, standing, and attorney's fees, while upholding defenses related to mootness.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-12-09
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to strike affirmative defenses, treating one as a denial and striking another without prejudice.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-12-04
The court held that a motion to strike is not applicable to a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, and that a motion for summary judgment filed before adequate discovery is premature and should be denied without prejudice.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-11-25
The court held that affirmative defenses are subject to the heightened pleading standard established in Twombly and Iqbal, and granted the motion to strike because many of the defendant's defenses were vague, conclusory, and failed to allege sufficient facts.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-11-12
The court granted the defendant's motion to strike portions of the amended complaint deemed immaterial, impertinent, scandalous, unnecessary, and unrelated to the plaintiff's claims.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-10-29
The court held that affirmative defenses, like complaints, are subject to the plausibility pleading standard established in Twombly and Iqbal, requiring factual support beyond conclusory allegations.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-10-25
The court held that affirmative defenses must comply with the heightened pleading standard established in Twombly and Iqbal, requiring factual support beyond mere conclusory allegations.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-10-24
The court held that affirmative defenses must meet the same pleading standards as complaints, requiring factual specificity beyond conclusory allegations.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-09-20
A request for attorney's fees, even if referencing statutes, does not constitute an affirmative defense and is therefore subject to being stricken.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-08-28
The court held that Angela Douglas's opt-in consent was timely due to ambiguity in instructions, but Sheri Gower's and Lisa Brown's consents were untimely as they lacked a proper motion and showing of excusable neglect.
-
269 F.R.D. 176·
S.D. Fla.·
2017-02-27
The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to strike, granted Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiffs' supplemental filing, and denied Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a supplement.
-
Del. Ch.·
2015-09-10
The Delaware Court of Chancery granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss and strike. The court denied the motion to dismiss Counts II and III, finding them moot or lacking subject matter jurisdiction, respectively. The court denied the motion to strike
-
1992 WL 29992·
M.D. Fla.·
2013-08-20
The court held that the children's claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) could proceed due to physical impact, but John Seybold's claim was dismissed as too attenuated from the incident.
-
799 F. Supp. 2d 1319·
M.D. Fla.·
2011-05-06
The court held that a claimant's assertion of an interest in assets, even if not titled in their name, is sufficient for standing at the pleading stage, and the 'innocent owner' defense is premature until the government proves the property is forfeitable.