559 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 337 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-09-07
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment and denied leave to amend the complaint, finding no clear error in the prior dismissal of the claims.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-08-21
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under RICO because he did not adequately plead predicate acts of racketeering activity or a pattern of such activity.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-08-20
The court held that while the relators could dismiss Count I, they must file an amended complaint to do so, and the United States' consent resolved the statutory inquiry regarding dismissal.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause to amend the complaint after the deadline, and therefore the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint was denied.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint is stricken and the amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice as a shotgun pleading.
-
The court held that leave to file a second amended complaint is granted in part, allowing revisions to existing exemplar claims and party changes, but denying the addition of a new plaintiff due to futility.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against the doctor defendants, as his allegations primarily concerned differences in medical judgment and treatment choices. The court also denied the plaintiff's motio
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed for insufficient service of process and for being a shotgun pleading, but granted leave to amend.
-
The court granted plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint, finding the futility arguments premature for this stage.
-
The Court held that the plaintiff's complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and must be stricken.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-07-14
Plaintiff Yolaisy Perez sought to amend her complaint in a fatal police shooting case by adding eight new defendants and three new causes of action more than eight months after the amendment deadline had passed and after fifty-five depositions had been taken. The court denied the
-
The court granted the plaintiff's request for leave to amend his complaint, finding no substantial reason to deny it.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-05-04
The court held that plaintiffs' renewed motion for leave to amend their complaint should be granted in part, allowing amendments based on agreed-upon confidential documents, but denied as to contested allegations for failure to show good cause.
-
The court granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to substitute the legal names of the medical defendants.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-04-19
The court granted Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint and denied Defendants' motion for summary judgment as moot and premature.
-
The court held that a sheriff's office is not a legal entity amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a prisoner cannot bring a claim for mental or emotional injury without alleging a physical injury.
-
The court held that a sheriff's office is not a legal entity amenable to suit under § 1983 and that a prisoner cannot bring a claim for mental or emotional injury without alleging a physical injury.
-
The court held that a sheriff's office is not a legal entity amenable to suit under § 1983 and that a claim for mental or emotional injury without physical injury is barred by the PLRA.
-
The court granted the parties' joint motion to substitute the personal representative of the deceased defendant's estate as the defendant, treating it as a motion for leave to amend the complaint.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-04-02
The court held that a plaintiff who explicitly elects to proceed in admiralty, and fails to properly allege diversity jurisdiction, is not entitled to a jury trial.
-
The court held that the complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and lacked sufficient allegations to establish subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity.
-
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate good cause to amend their complaint beyond the scope of the limited extension previously granted.
-
The court granted the defendant's unopposed motion for an extension of time to answer the amended complaint, deeming the plaintiff's improper filing of the amended complaint moot.
-
The Court strikes the Class Action Complaint because it constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading and orders the Plaintiff to file a corrected complaint. The Court also directs Plaintiff to correct the inadequate jurisdictional allegations.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-02-19
The court denied defendants' motion for leave to amend affirmative defenses because they failed to establish good cause for amending after the scheduling order deadline and did not demonstrate diligence.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and struck it, granting leave to amend.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-01-25
The court held that the plaintiff's amendment to add a non-diverse defendant was proper, destroying diversity jurisdiction and requiring remand.
-
The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion for reconsideration, finding the counterclaim was abandoned but granting leave to amend to reassert it.
-
The Court requires parties to provide sufficient information to determine diversity jurisdiction, as the amended complaint's allegations regarding a new defendant's citizenship are insufficient.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint was denied because she failed to demonstrate good cause for the untimely filing after the scheduling order deadline.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and struck it, ordering the plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
-
The Court strikes the complaint because it is an impermissible shotgun pleading and fails to sufficiently allege subject matter jurisdiction.
-
The Court held that the Class Action Complaint constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading and was therefore stricken.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint was a shotgun pleading and failed to state claims for excessive force, deliberate indifference to medical needs, and ADA violations, warranting dismissal.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-12-07
The court granted the motion to dismiss claims against KAR and ADESA for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed Counts I-VI for improper joinder and as compulsory counterclaims.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-11-30
The court granted plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to add one specific defendant, CBS Broadcasting, Inc., but denied leave to add other proposed defendants.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint should be granted, as good cause existed under Rule 16 and no substantial reason warranted denial under Rule 15.
-
The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion to amend its complaint, allowing the addition of certain claims but denying the joinder of a new plaintiff due to jurisdictional issues.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's pro se complaint failed to state claims for unreasonable search, sexual assault, retaliation, and due process violations.
-
The Court strikes the Plaintiff's complaint because it constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading and orders Plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-09-08
The court held that it could not assume subject matter jurisdiction based on a stipulation to correct a party's name, especially when the substitution involved different business entities and lacked sufficient citizenship allegations.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and must be stricken.
-
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.
-
The court held that the plaintiff demonstrated good cause to amend his complaint after the deadline, and the proposed amendments were not futile.
-
The Court held that the plaintiff's complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and must be stricken.
-
The Court holds that the plaintiff's complaint constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading and must be stricken.
-
The court held that leave to amend the complaint should be granted because the proposed second amended complaint cured previous deficiencies and was not futile.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to adequately allege diversity jurisdiction and constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading.
-
The court held that it must abstain from hearing the case under the Younger doctrine due to ongoing state criminal proceedings, and therefore denied the motion to amend as futile and dismissed the case.
-
The court held that a defendant seeking to amend pleadings after a scheduling order deadline must first show good cause under Rule 16, and if shown, then demonstrate no substantial reason to deny amendment under Rule 15.