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

• Hee Jin Lowery v. AmGuard Ins. Co.
  90 F.4th 1098· 11th Cir.· 2024-01-10 ·cited 5×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court correctly granted equitable reformation of the insurance policy due to mutual mistake and affirmed the judgment for the plaintiffs.
• Grills v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
  645 F. Supp. 2d 1107· M.D. Fla.· 2009-08-04 ·cited 5×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)
  The court held that while some claims might be preempted, the plaintiff's fraud and fraudulent concealment claims, based on a duty not to deceive, are not preempted by federal law and may proceed if properly pleaded. The court also found the plaintiff failed to properly allege di
• Teel v. United Techs. Pratt & Whitney
  953 F. Supp. 1534· S.D. Fla.· 1997-02-17 ·cited 5×
  Florida Statute § 768.72, which requires a reasonable evidentiary basis before punitive damages can be pleaded, is substantive law and must be applied in federal court to state law claims to prevent forum shopping and inequitable administration of the law.
• Joyner v. Monier Roof Tile, Inc.
  784 F. Supp. 872· S.D. Fla.· 1992-02-04 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 should be applied retroactively to allow amendment of the complaint, as it provides remedial rather than substantive changes and does not result in manifest injustice.
• McGREGOR v. United States
  933 F.2d 156· 2d Cir.· 1991-05-15 ·cited 5×
  The court held that failure to serve the Attorney General within 120 days under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(j) is not excused by "good cause" absent government misconduct, and filing a second complaint after a Rule 4(j) dismissal does not toll the statute of limitations.
• Pawtuxet Cove Marina, Inc. v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.
  807 F.2d 1089· 1st Cir.· 1986-12-18 ·cited 5×
  A citizen suit under the Clean Water Act may proceed if the plaintiff fairly alleges a continuing likelihood that the defendant will violate the Act if not enjoined, even if the specific violation has ceased.
• Johnson v. Duval Cnty. Teachers Credit Union
  507 F. Supp. 307· M.D. Fla.· 1980-11-14 ·cited 5×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that a plaintiff's failure to obtain a right-to-sue letter due to EEOC inaction does not bar a Title VII claim, but vague allegations of continuous discrimination by a former employee are insufficient for a § 1981 claim.
• Lorna Williams v. Town OF Okoboji
  606 F.2d 812· 8th Cir.· 1979-10-04 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the plaintiff should be allowed to amend her complaint because the additional facts provided, if properly pleaded, could state a claim for relief.
• Wiley v. The Peoples Bank & Tr. Co.
  438 F.2d 513· 5th Cir.· 1971-02-10 ·cited 5×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the instruments were documentary drafts, exempting them from the UCC's midnight deadline for payor banks, and that UCC § 3-511(4) does not excuse liability for dishonor of demand items.
• Crown Coat Front Co., Inc. v. United States
  395 F.2d 160· 2d Cir.· 1968-05-14 ·cited 5×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to amend the complaint and properly dismissed the complaint as time-barred, as the prior filing in the Court of Claims did not toll the statute of limitations for the district court action.
• In re Pegasus Wireless Corp. Sec. Litig.
  657 F. Supp. 2d 1320· S.D. Fla.· 2009-09-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to plead with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that defendant Peraticos acted with scienter, and thus granted his motion to dismiss.
• Espat v. Espat
  56 F. Supp. 2d 1377· M.D. Fla.· 1999-07-19 ·cited 4×
  Nocif Espat sought declaratory relief regarding ownership of a life insurance policy on his ex-wife Kay Ellen Espat, claiming he became the owner upon their 1989 divorce, while Kay Ellen later designated Randolph Richardson as beneficiary. The court denied Federated Life Insuranc
• CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Pensacola
  936 F. Supp. 885· N.D. Fla.· 1995-10-17 ·cited 4×
  The court granted plaintiff's motion to amend its complaint to add new contract claims and defendants, finding the proposed claims were not futile. The court denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of prior dismissals.
• Block v. First Blood Assocs.
  988 F.2d 344· 2d Cir.· 1993-03-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the investors' securities fraud claims were time-barred because they accrued in October 1982, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the defendants to amend their answer to plead the statute of limitations defense.
• Caldwell v. Woodford Cnty. Chief Jailer
  968 F.2d 595· 6th Cir.· 1992-07-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the use of a stun gun and straitjacket to subdue a disruptive inmate was a good-faith effort to maintain order and did not violate the Eighth Amendment, and that the one-day delay in medical treatment did not constitute deliberate indifference.
• Doe v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs
  783 F. Supp. 1379· S.D. Fla.· 1992-01-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 does not apply retroactively to the plaintiff's claims, and therefore, the motion to amend the complaint to add claims under the 1991 Act is denied in part.
• Baxley-DeLAMAR Monuments, Inc. v. Am. Cemetery Ass'n
  938 F.2d 846· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to submit individual tying claims to the jury because the plaintiff failed to prove the essential element of market power in the tying product market.
• Schlacter-Jones v. General Telephone OF California
  936 F.2d 435· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-17 ·cited 4×
  State law claims arising from an employee's drug testing and discharge are preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA when their resolution requires interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement.
• Coleman v. Ramada Hotel Operating Co.
  933 F.2d 470· 7th Cir.· 1991-05-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a plaintiff's voluntary participation in an obviously risky activity, even if part of a company picnic, bars recovery under the doctrine of assumption of risk, and that the defendant's failure to explicitly plead assumption of risk was not a waiver when contri
• The Golden Budha Corp. v. The Canadian Land Co. OF Am., N.V.
  931 F.2d 196· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the conversion, fraudulent conveyance, and constructive trust claims, and that the plaintiff should be allowed to amend the fraud claim.
• Tillman v. CSX Transp.
  929 F.2d 1023· 5th Cir.· 1991-04-11 ·cited 4×
  A remand order based on the trial court's belief that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction is unreviewable, even if that belief is mistaken, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and (d).
• Dole v. Arco Chem. Co. & Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n
  921 F.2d 484· 3d Cir.· 1990-12-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the administrative law judge abused his discretion in denying the Secretary's motion to amend the complaint, as there was no undue delay or sufficient prejudice to Arco.
• McMORAN OIL & GAS Co. v. KN Energy, Inc.
  907 F.2d 1022· 10th Cir.· 1990-07-10 ·cited 4×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The addition of a nondiverse limited partnership as a party plaintiff, even if it is the real party in interest, destroys diversity jurisdiction, and ancillary jurisdiction cannot save the action.
• Aids Counseling & Testing Ctrs. v. Grp. W Television
  903 F.2d 1000· 4th Cir.· 1990-05-22 ·cited 4×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying leave to amend, granting summary judgment, dismissing individual claims, or quashing subpoenas, and therefore affirmed the judgment.
• Masters v. USX Corp.
  900 F.2d 727· 4th Cir.· 1990-04-09 ·cited 4×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  A plan's revision to a withdrawal liability assessment may only be refused by an arbitrator if the employer demonstrates prejudice, and the use of a moving market average for asset valuation is not per se unreasonable.
• The United States v. Cont'l Ill. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. OF Chicago (individually & as agent for The Bank of Cal., N.A.
  889 F.2d 1248· 2d Cir.· 1989-11-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the "buyer in the ordinary course of business" defense is an affirmative defense, and that the lower courts abused their discretion by denying the appellant leave to amend its answer to assert this defense.
• Jones v. Psimos
  882 F.2d 1277· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the attorney because the client failed to establish causation for her legal malpractice claim, as the underlying state court property division would not have been reversed on appeal. The court als
• Harley McLAIN v. Meier
  851 F.2d 1045· 8th Cir.· 1988-07-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while a voter has standing to challenge ballot access laws, North Dakota's laws were not unconstitutionally restrictive, but the district court erred in denying leave to amend regarding a claim about uncounted write-in votes.
• Charles T. Corwin, D.D.S. v. Marney
  843 F.2d 194· 5th Cir.· 1988-04-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that summary judgment based on constructive knowledge from public records was improper for federal securities law limitations, and that the RICO claim is subject to a four-year statute of limitations.
• Cannon v. The Kroger Co.
  837 F.2d 660· 4th Cir.· 1988-01-29 ·cited 4×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court should not have dismissed the plaintiff's hybrid action for failing to file a federal-style complaint within six months of accrual. The action was timely commenced in state court under North Carolina procedural rules, which were applicable prior to removal. Federal Rule
• Deasy v. Hill
  833 F.2d 38· 4th Cir.· 1987-11-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add a claim for negligent performance of a pap smear, due to undue delay and prejudice to the defendant.
• Seafoam, Inc. v. Barrier Sys., Inc.
  830 F.2d 62· 5th Cir.· 1987-10-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on prescription and in dismissing the suit for lack of jurisdictional amount, reversing both decisions.
• Cornwall v. U.S. Constr. Mfg., Inc.
  800 F.2d 250· Fed. Cir.· 1986-09-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion to amend the answer to include an affirmative defense of invalidity without providing a justifying reason or considering prejudice.
• Rachal v. Ingram Corp.
  795 F.2d 1210· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in allowing the plaintiff to withdraw his jury demand and amend his complaint to an admiralty action, as the defendant had no independent right to a jury trial in the absence of diversity jurisdiction at the time of the amendment
• Mendoza v. Wight Vineyard Mgmt.
  783 F.2d 941· 9th Cir.· 1986-02-26 ·cited 4×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  Vineyard management companies that operate farms are exempt from the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act's registration requirements as 'agricultural employers,' even if they do not own the land.
• United States Inv. & Dev. Corp. v. Antone B. Cruz, Jr.
  780 F.2d 166· 1st Cir.· 1986-01-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to amend the complaint and in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute.
• Span-Eng Assocs. v. Weidner
  771 F.2d 464· 10th Cir.· 1985-08-28 ·cited 4×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by issuing an injunction preventing plaintiffs from proceeding in a related Arizona action, as the defendants failed to make a strong showing of necessity for such an injunction.
• Jones v. State OF La.
  764 F.2d 1183· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a state official named in the complaint, even with technical pleading deficiencies, is sufficient to allow for injunctive relief and avoid Eleventh Amendment immunity.
• Collin Fearon, Jr. v. Henderson
  756 F.2d 267· 2d Cir.· 1985-02-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court, not the appellate court, has the authority to grant an extension of time to file a late notice of appeal. The mere acceptance of a late notice by the clerk is insufficient.
• Tenneco Resins, Inc. v. Reeves Bros., Inc.
  752 F.2d 630· Fed. Cir.· 1985-01-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tenneco's repeated motions to amend its pleadings to assert patent invalidity due to undue delay and prejudice to the opposing party.
• Seymour M. Chase v. Pan-Pacific Broad., Inc.
  750 F.2d 131· D.C. Cir.· 1984-12-18 ·cited 4×·via Rule 15(a)
  A defendant does not waive a personal jurisdiction defense by asserting it simultaneously with a counterclaim in their answer.
• Foster v. Daon Corp.
  713 F.2d 148· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motions to amend her complaint, particularly concerning the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims.
• McKenzie v. Wakulla Cnty.
  45 F.R.D. 97· N.D. Fla.· 1981-02-27 ·cited 4×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
• Bernard v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co.
  624 F.2d 552· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury's finding of willful and wanton conduct by the railroad was supported by substantial evidence and thus could not be disturbed. The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to amend the complai
• Syble Gene Shows v. Thurl S. Harber and S. O. G.
  575 F.2d 1253· 8th Cir.· 1978-05-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying leave to amend the complaint to establish diversity jurisdiction, but correctly dismissed the Jones Act and Admiralty claims for lack of jurisdiction.
• United States v. Vorachek
  563 F.2d 884· 8th Cir.· 1977-10-07 ·cited 4×
  The district court abused its discretion by denying the government leave to amend its complaint to include supplemental tax assessments, as justice required the amendment to be freely given.
• Baker v. Chicago
  489 F.2d 953· 7th Cir.· 1973-11-30 ·cited 4×
  A release, unsupported by consideration and lacking mutual intent, does not bar a civil rights claim, especially when the employee reasonably relied on advice from a government agency.
• In re LOS Angeles Tr. Deed & Mortg. Exch. v. Phipps
  464 F.2d 1136· 9th Cir.· 1972-07-17 ·cited 4×
  The bankruptcy referee did not have summary jurisdiction over the trustees' counterclaim because it arose from transactions separate from the creditors' claims, and the creditors timely objected to jurisdiction.
• Roloff v. Arabian Am. OIL Co.
  421 F.2d 240· 2d Cir.· 1970-01-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the New York Workmen's Compensation Law was not the exclusive remedy for injuries resulting from malpractice by the employer's medical staff, even if stipulated in the employment contract.
• Stiegele v. J. M. Moore Import-Export Co., Inc.
  312 F.2d 588· 2d Cir.· 1963-01-10 ·cited 4×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the patent was valid and infringed, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend pleadings for late defenses.