Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 15(A)

559 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 337 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Sandcrest Outpatient Servs., P.A. v. Cumberland Cnty. Hosp. Sys., Inc.
  853 F.2d 1139· 4th Cir.· 1988-08-10 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the appellees were entitled to immunity from damages under the Local Government Antitrust Act of 1984, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in staying discovery or denying leave to amend the complaint.
• Odishelidze v. AETNA Life & Cas. Co.
  853 F.2d 21· 1st Cir.· 1988-08-03 ·cited 11×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion to amend jurisdictional allegations, but affirmed the dismissal of the federal antitrust and RICO claims.
• Albany Ins. Co. v. Esses
  831 F.2d 41· 2d Cir.· 1987-10-15 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the alleged fraudulent acts did not constitute a "pattern of racketeering activity" required by RICO because the enterprise had a clear terminating goal and lacked the necessary continuity. The court also held that denying leave to replead was not an abuse of
• Kiser v. Gen. Elec. Corp.
  831 F.2d 423· 3d Cir.· 1987-10-14 ·cited 11×
  The district court erred by dismissing the complaint without considering the plaintiff's motions for leave to amend, as leave to amend should be freely given and defective jurisdictional allegations can be amended.
• Howard v. Mr. Leoneal Davis
  815 F.2d 1429· 11th Cir.· 1987-05-04 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to consider an unexhausted claim and that Howard's other claims lacked merit.
• Carbalan v. Vaughn
  760 F.2d 662· 5th Cir.· 1985-05-20 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint, the city was not liable for the judge's judicial acts, and the plaintiff did not prevail to be entitled to attorney's fees.
• Faser v. Sears
  674 F.2d 856· 11th Cir.· 1982-04-30 ·cited 11×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the statute of limitations barred the claim against Sears and that the district court properly denied the motion to amend to add Dr. Fishman, but erred in denying Dr. Fishman and Upjohn's motions for summary judgment as moot.
• Cibran Enters., Inc. v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc.
  365 F. Supp. 2d 1241· S.D. Fla.· 2005-02-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the corporate plaintiff lacked standing to sue for breach of contract due to an invalid assignment, but granted leave to substitute the individual who should have brought the suit.
• Dannebrog Rederi AS v. M/Y True Dream
  146 F. Supp. 2d 1307· S.D. Fla.· 2001-02-28 ·cited 10×
  The court denied Underwriters' motion for leave to amend their complaint to add Rule B allegations, finding that granting the amendment would unduly prejudice Ashlar and potential buyers.
• Scattergood v. Perelman
  945 F.2d 618· 3d Cir.· 1991-09-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction is moot because the merger has occurred, and that the plaintiffs' federal securities claims based on a misleading proxy statement and pre-merger misrepresentations in a freeze-out merger are barred by the
• Villa v. City OF Chicago
  924 F.2d 629· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the Title VII and implied contract claims, nor in denying leave to amend the complaint.
• Ricketts v. Midwest Nat'l Bank
  874 F.2d 1177· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a district court must first assess the substantiality of federal claims to determine subject matter jurisdiction before considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and that sua sponte dismissals require notice and an opportunity
• Mills v. DES ARC Convalescent Home
  872 F.2d 823· 8th Cir.· 1989-04-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend or in admitting evidence for the Title VII claim, but remanded the Section 1981 claim to determine if new defendants were in privity with original defendants for res judicata purposes.
• Brisk v. City of Miami Beach
  709 F. Supp. 1146· S.D. Fla.· 1989-04-07 ·cited 10×
  A motion to dismiss is rendered moot by the filing of an answer, but the court may treat the arguments as a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
• Jarvis v. Regan
  833 F.2d 149· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-27 ·cited 10×
  A plaintiff cannot state a RICO claim if their injury is personal or political, rather than to business or property.
• Hylton v. John Deere Co. & Deere & Co.
  802 F.2d 1011· 8th Cir.· 1986-10-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's finding that the combine was not unreasonably dangerous was not clearly erroneous and that the district court correctly applied Missouri law regarding strict products liability in a design defect case.
• Quartana v. Utterback
  789 F.2d 1297· 8th Cir.· 1986-04-30 ·cited 10×
  The notice of appeal was timely filed, and the plaintiff stated valid claims for libel and tortious interference with contractual relations.
• Delois Earlie v. Jacobs
  745 F.2d 342· 5th Cir.· 1984-11-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in striking the jury demand because the claims were primarily equitable and the punitive damages claim was factually unsupported. It also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to amend th
• Delo H. Caspary v. The La. Land & Exploration Co.
  725 F.2d 189· 2d Cir.· 1984-01-05 ·cited 10×
  An appellate court has jurisdiction to permit a plaintiff to amend their complaint to delete remaining untried claims, thereby creating a final judgment for appellate review.
• A.E. & R.R. v. Mitchell
  724 F.2d 864· 10th Cir.· 1983-12-28 ·cited 10×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint for a fourth time, as it would have introduced new claims and parties after significant delay.
• Washington v. NEW York City Bd. OF Estimate
  709 F.2d 792· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-03 ·cited 10×
  A pro se claimant should not be deemed to waive a jury trial demand without being informed of their constitutional right and the necessity of a written demand.
• Young C. Park v. Didden
  695 F.2d 626· D.C. Cir.· 1982-12-10 ·cited 10×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  A district court must conduct a careful, practical analysis under Rule 19 before dismissing an action for failure to join parties, and cannot dismiss based on conclusory labels like 'necessary' or 'indispensable' without such analysis.
• Mertens v. Hummell
  587 F.2d 862· 7th Cir.· 1978-08-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for noncompliance with discovery orders and in denying leave to file a third amended complaint.
• Richardson v. United States & Don's Chem. Co., Inc.
  336 F.2d 265· 9th Cir.· 1964-09-09 ·cited 10×
  The appeal must be dismissed because the orders appealed from were not final decisions and the appeal was premature.
• Purcell v. City of Fort Lauderdale
  753 F. Supp. 3d 1308· S.D. Fla.· 2025-07-02 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the City of Fort Lauderdale is immune from state-law claims for negligent training due to sovereign immunity and that negligent supervision claims require the employee's actions to be outside the scope of employment, which was not the case here.
• René Ynclan Ynclan v. Dep't OF the AIR Force
  943 F.2d 1388· 5th Cir.· 1991-09-23 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the thirty-day period for filing a Title VII suit against a government employer is subject to equitable tolling, and a clerical delay in filing due to pending motions should not prejudice the plaintiff.
• United Union OF Roofers v. Ins. Corp. OF Am.
  919 F.2d 1398· 9th Cir.· 1990-12-04 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the Union lacked associational standing to sue for its members' past wages because such claims require individual participation. However, the court reversed the refusal to allow the Union to amend its complaint to assert an independent basis for standing.
• Milbert v. Koop
  830 F.2d 354· D.C. Cir.· 1987-10-06 ·cited 9×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that commissioned officers of the Public Health Service (PHS) are not subject to the 'military exception' that bars active members of the armed forces from suing under Title VII and, by extension, the Rehabilitation Act.
• Amella v. United States
  732 F.2d 711· 9th Cir.· 1984-05-03 ·cited 9×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  Service of a libel on the United States must be made "forthwith" as required by statute, and a 63-day delay is not considered "forthwith," leading to dismissal.
• USM Corp. v. GKN Fasteners Ltd.
  578 F.2d 21· 1st Cir.· 1978-07-12 ·cited 9×
  Amended pleadings that attempt to retroactively establish appellate jurisdiction do not relate back to validate an untimely appeal.
• Perrian v. O'Grady
  958 F.2d 192· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint to add new defendants shortly before trial, nor did the plaintiff meet the standard for joinder under Rule 19.
• Farias v. Bexar Cnty. Bd. OF Trs. FOR Mental Health Mental Retardation Servs.
  925 F.2d 866· 5th Cir.· 1991-03-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's denial of a jury trial motion was not reviewable because the order was too opaque and failed to demonstrate the exercise of discretion under Rule 39(b).
• United States for the Kalispel Indian Tribe & Individual Allottees v. Pend Oreille Pub. Util. Dist. NO. 1
  926 F.2d 1502· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court properly excluded annual spring floods when determining the ordinary high water line and that the Tribe's aboriginal title was extinguished by compensation. However, the court reversed the denial of the Tribe's motion to amend its complaint
• Christopher C. DAY, Ph.D. v. Morgenthau
  909 F.2d 75· 2d Cir.· 1990-08-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were time-barred because they were filed one day after the three-year statute of limitations expired, applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a) and New York General Construction Law § 20.
• James v. T.G. Sadler
  909 F.2d 834· 5th Cir.· 1990-08-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion to amend the complaint to add federal agents and improperly granted summary judgment for the Yazoo City officers regarding the pat-down search, but properly dismissed the negligence claim.
• Campbell v. Ingersoll Milling Mach. Co.
  893 F.2d 925· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint, excluding evidence of a prior sexual assault, or entering judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
• Edwards v. Occidental Chem. Corp.
  892 F.2d 1442· 9th Cir.· 1990-01-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an amended complaint naming the correct defendant relates back to the original filing date if the defendant received notice and knew or should have known of the mistake, and that a district court's finding of pretext in an employer's stated reasons for a promo
• Ferris v. Santa Clara Cnty.
  891 F.2d 715· 9th Cir.· 1989-12-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the California statutes proscribing certain sexual activities with minors are constitutional and that the district court did not err in striking the appellant's second amended complaint.
• Interroyal Corp. v. Sponseller
  889 F.2d 108· 6th Cir.· 1989-11-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment without providing notice of the required specificity for opposing evidence and in denying leave to amend the complaint without sufficient justification.
• Jablonski v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc.
  863 F.2d 289· 3d Cir.· 1988-12-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that claims for personal injury damages, even if pleaded as breach of contract, are subject to Pennsylvania's two-year statute of limitations for tort actions, and that denying leave to amend a complaint to add such a claim was not an abuse of discretion if the cla
• Goya Foods, Inc. v. Tropicana Prods., Inc.
  846 F.2d 848· 2d Cir.· 1988-05-12 ·cited 8×
  The pendency of a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) registration proceeding is not a proper basis for a district court to stay or dismiss a trademark infringement or declaratory judgment action.
• Island Creek Coal Co. v. Lake Shore, Inc.
  832 F.2d 274· 4th Cir.· 1987-10-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the interpretation of a contract clause regarding consequential damages was a question of fact for the factfinder, not for the court on summary judgment.
• N.M. Ex rel. Energy & Minerals Dep't v. U.S. Dep't OF the Interior
  820 F.2d 441· D.C. Cir.· 1987-06-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the Tribe's counterclaim without considering transfer, and that the dismissal of the complaint was proper as the Tribe was not prejudiced. The court vacated the denial of the preliminary injunction and dis
• Jaser v. NEW York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Ass'n & Adriano Fernandes
  815 F.2d 240· 2d Cir.· 1987-03-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying leave to amend the complaint to drop nondiverse parties, as those parties were not indispensable. However, the dismissal for lack of diversity was proper.
• Wakefield v. N. Telecom, Inc.
  769 F.2d 109· 2d Cir.· 1985-08-05 ·cited 8×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding the breach of contract claim were erroneous, requiring a new trial, and that the age discrimination claim should have been dismissed with prejudice.
• Scott v. Clark
  761 F.2d 1524· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the double jeopardy claim was barred by res judicata and that the Parole Commission's decision substantially complied with its regulations, but remanded for consideration of the good time credit claim.
• Sweetheart Plastics, Inc. v. Detroit Forming, Inc.
  743 F.2d 1039· 4th Cir.· 1984-09-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion to amend the complaint and erred in its jury instructions regarding acquiescence and abandonment.
• Emerson G.M. Diesel, Inc. v. Alaskan Enter.
  732 F.2d 1468· 9th Cir.· 1984-05-11 ·cited 8×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that a plaintiff in admiralty can recover purely economic losses under a strict liability theory, and that a party can elect to proceed in admiralty without a jury even if the other party objects.
• Ross v. Mebane
  536 F.2d 1199· 7th Cir.· 1976-06-30 ·cited 8×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that claims challenging the fact or duration of confinement, including the deprivation of good time credits, are not moot and should be considered via habeas corpus, even if the prisoner has been transferred. Claims for injunctive relief against future punishment a
• Konigsberg v. Shute
  435 F.2d 551· 3d Cir.· 1970-12-22 ·cited 8×
  A defendant waives the right to assert lack of personal jurisdiction or insufficiency of process if the defense is not raised by motion or in the initial responsive pleading or an amendment made as a matter of course.