559 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 337 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
The court held that the plaintiffs' amended complaint constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading, failing to provide adequate notice of the claims against the defendants, and therefore recommended dismissal.
-
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.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-05-23
The court held that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's excessive force claims related to the use of pepper spray and the application of handcuffs.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim is preempted by the Copyright Act, fails for lack of standing and failure to state a claim, and that any amendment would be futile.
-
The court held that a motion to dismiss specific claims in a multi-defendant case should be construed as a motion to amend the complaint under Rule 15, not dismissed under Rule 41(a).
-
The court held that the plaintiff's claims are barred by res judicata because a prior judgment on the merits was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction involving the same parties and the same causes of action.
-
A party seeking to amend pleadings after a scheduling order deadline must demonstrate good cause, which requires diligence; absent good cause, the court need not consider Rule 15 factors, and amendment may be denied due to undue delay or prejudice.
-
A party cannot amend a complaint after dismissal and final judgment; they must seek relief under Rule 59(e) or 60(b), which the plaintiffs failed to adequately justify.
-
Dr. Jason Lakatos, a physician who worked for Florida IPS Medical Services, sued for wrongful termination after he was forced to resign in 2021 for refusing to comply with the employer's mandatory use of Remdesivir and prescribing policies that contradicted his medical judgment r
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-04-08
The court granted Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint to add a non-diverse defendant and remanded the case to state court.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-04-02
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the fourth amended complaint without prejudice.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-03-31
The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend, allowing her to file a second amended complaint, and denied the defendant's motion to dismiss as moot.
-
An amended complaint is deemed timely filed if the motion to amend was filed within the statute of limitations, even if the court ruled on the motion and the amended complaint was filed after the statute of limitations expired, especially when the initial motion was denied due to
-
The court held that service by publication was proper after the plaintiff dismissed its damages claim, and that a notice of action requiring an answer was not deficient.
-
The court granted Plaintiff's motion to stay proceedings to allow amendment of the complaint, but denied Defendants' motion to stay the case management conference.
-
The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend, allowing him to file an amended complaint that complies with federal rules.
-
The court granted the motion to dismiss, finding the amended complaint to be a shotgun pleading and the ADA/GINA claims time-barred.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's Amended Complaint failed to state a plausible claim under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) because the defendant was not a creditor, and therefore, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's lawsuit was filed too late, as the one-year statute of limitations was triggered by the insurer's initial partial denial of the claim, not by subsequent rejections of supplemental requests.
-
The court held that initiating a second lawsuit for claims arising from the same set of facts constitutes improper claim-splitting, warranting dismissal of the second action.
-
The court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint, finding no apparent reason to deny it and deferring futility arguments to later dispositive motions.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
-
The court held that a claim for unfair competition under the Lanham Act is not a valid cause of action and dismissed it with prejudice, while other claims were dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend due to insufficient pleading of trademark distinctiveness.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-12-02
The court construed the plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal of a count as a motion for leave to amend the complaint.
-
The court granted defendants' motion for appellate attorney fees and costs, awarding them $8,458.55.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was a shotgun pleading because it improperly commingled distinct causes of action and theories of liability, failing to provide adequate notice to the defendant.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state claims for unjust enrichment, money had and received, negligence, and conversion, and that amendment would be futile for these claims.
-
The court held that a defendant seeking to amend its pleadings after the deadline designated in a scheduling order must demonstrate good cause under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-10-16
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing Count III without prejudice for failure to state a claim and granting leave to amend, while denying dismissal for Counts V and VI based on independent tort doctrine, ownership, and notice.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-10-09
The court granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, rendering the defendants' motion to dismiss moot.
-
The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a claim for trade secret misappropriation against Newcoast Financial Services, LLC, due to insufficient factual allegations and being a shotgun pleading.
-
A motion to dismiss less than an entire action under Rule 41(a)(2) is improper; the proper procedure is to seek leave to amend the complaint under Rule 15.
-
The court recommended dismissing TCH's counterclaims for failure to prosecute and granting AM's motion to amend its complaint to dismiss claims against TCH, and entering final judgment against Monroe.
-
The Court held that the Verified Complaint constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading and must be stricken.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for breach of contract because the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations regarding the loss and the assignment's validity under Florida law for surplus lines insurers.
-
The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading and must be stricken.
-
A judge's rulings and comments made during judicial proceedings, even if critical, do not constitute personal bias sufficient for recusal unless they stem from extrajudicial sources or demonstrate pervasive bias.
-
A judge's rulings and remarks made during judicial proceedings, even if critical, do not constitute grounds for recusal unless they stem from personal, extrajudicial bias.
-
The court held that the defendants failed to establish good cause to modify the scheduling order and amend their pleadings after the deadline had passed.
-
The court denied plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint and denied defendants' motion to stay discovery.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-08-27
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and to remand the case.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's objections were overruled, his motion to amend was denied, and his amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
-
The Court held that the Defendant's counterclaim constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading and must be stricken.
-
The court held that the complaint was dismissed without prejudice because it lacked clarity regarding the plaintiffs' employment status and relationship to the Bonus Agreement's release clause, but granted leave to amend. The breach of fiduciary duty claim was sufficiently pleade
-
The court held that the plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint contained shotgun pleadings in Counts 3 and 4, warranting dismissal with prejudice, and denied leave to amend.
-
The court held that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because they invite review and rejection of state court judgments.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-08-13
The court recommended granting the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to insufficient pleading of a valid assignment, and granting the motion for leave to amend.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-08-09
The court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to supplement their allegations of negligence and add a strict liability claim against Trane U.S., Inc.
-
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss, and allowing the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint.
-
The Court holds that the Plaintiff's Complaint constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading and is therefore stricken.