Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 19

215 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Zurn Indus., Inc. v. Acton Constr. Co., Inc.
  847 F.2d 234· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court improperly realigned parties to destroy diversity jurisdiction, as the primary dispute was Zum's claim for extra work, not Garland's claims.
• Meredith v. Rockwell Int'l Corp.
  826 F.2d 463· 6th Cir.· 1987-08-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the parent corporation did not assume the subsidiary's employment contract, and the employee's employment with the parent was at-will.
• Nottingham v. Gen. Am. Commc'ns Corp.
  811 F.2d 873· 5th Cir.· 1987-03-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in awarding damages and partial rescission, nor in its evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or damage calculations, and affirmed the judgment.
• Pulitzer-Polster v. Pulitzer
  784 F.2d 1305· 5th Cir.· 1986-03-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the federal suit for failure to join indispensable parties, as their absence could impair their ability to protect their interests and subject the defendant to inconsistent obligations.
• Rapoport v. Banco Mexicano Somex
  668 F.2d 667· 2d Cir.· 1982-01-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the dismissal for failure to join indispensable parties was proper, but the subsequent injunction was invalid due to lack of jurisdiction.
• Exxon Corp. v. United States
  655 F.2d 1112· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1981-06-30 ·cited 6×
  The court exercised its supervisory powers to consolidate litigation concerning oil pricing regulations in the District of Columbia action, staying proceedings in the Texas action.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Doug Neal Mgmt. Co.
  620 F.2d 1133· 6th Cir.· 1980-04-08 ·cited 6×
  The court should enforce the National Labor Relations Board's order because substantial evidence supports the Administrative Law Judge's findings of anti-union bias and unfair labor practices.
• Caldwell v. Camp
  594 F.2d 705· 8th Cir.· 1979-03-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that federal abstention under the Younger doctrine is appropriate for both equitable and damage claims related to an ongoing state forfeiture proceeding, but the dismissal should be without prejudice.
• Lewis v. Lewis
  358 F.2d 495· 9th Cir.· 1966-03-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the corporations were indispensable parties and that diversity jurisdiction was lacking as to them, requiring dismissal of claims against them.
• Kuchenig v. The Cal. Co.
  350 F.2d 551· 5th Cir.· 1965-07-12 ·cited 6×
  The State of Louisiana is an indispensable party to a petitory action seeking a declaration of ownership of navigable water bottoms, and such an action cannot proceed without the State's joinder.
• Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Aventura Eng'g & Const.
  534 F. Supp. 2d 1290· S.D. Fla.· 2008-01-08 ·cited 5×
  The court held that Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance Company was entitled to summary judgment, a judicial declaration of its right to settle Aventura's claim, monetary judgment for losses, and specific performance requiring collateral posting.
• Talbert v. Kelly
  799 F.2d 62· 3d Cir.· 1986-08-25 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the city's policy was not unconstitutional and did not cause the plaintiffs' rights violation, nor was the city estopped from denying liability. The court reversed the district court's directed verdict on liability.
• Stock W. Corp. v. Taylor
  942 F.2d 655· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-20 ·cited 4×
  The district court was correct in its decision.
• Curley v. Brignoli
  915 F.2d 81· 2d Cir.· 1990-09-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a derivative action could be recharacterized as a class action to preserve diversity jurisdiction, and the limited partnership could be dismissed as a dispensable party.
• Faysound Ltd. v. United Coconut Chems., Inc.
  878 F.2d 290· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction was lacking because an alien plaintiff cannot sue alien defendants, and the lessees were indispensable parties whose presence destroyed complete diversity.
• Shelton v. Exxon Corp.
  843 F.2d 212· 5th Cir.· 1988-04-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that King Ranch was not an indispensable party under Rule 19, and therefore the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of diversity jurisdiction.
• Eldredge v. Carpenters 46 N. Cal. Cntys. Joint Apprenticeship & Training Comm.
  833 F.2d 1334· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-09 ·cited 4×
  The Ninth Circuit held that the JATC's use of the 'hunting license' system for its apprenticeship program had a disparate impact on women and that the JATC failed to demonstrate it was a business necessity, thus violating Title VII.
• Herron v. Keene Corp. & Keene Bldg. Prods. Corp.
  751 F.2d 873· 6th Cir.· 1985-01-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the issue of whether to stay proceedings against non-bankrupt parties is a procedural matter governed by federal law, not state law.
• McCOWEN v. Jamieson
  724 F.2d 1421· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Secretary of Agriculture is a necessary party to the action because the validity of a waiver granted by the USDA is at issue, and his ability to protect his agency's interests would be impaired in his absence.
• United States v. Annis
  634 F.2d 1270· 10th Cir.· 1980-11-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that res judicata barred relitigation of tax liability and that foreclosure of a tax lien is an equitable action not requiring a jury trial. However, it remanded for a determination of whether a party claiming to be a trustee was indispensable and required joinder.
• Garcia v. Hall
  624 F.2d 150· 10th Cir.· 1980-06-23 ·cited 4×
  A partially subrogated insurance company need not be joined as a party plaintiff if its joinder would destroy diversity jurisdiction and the insured sues for the entire loss.
• Alesia Lee Fitzpatrick v. Bd. OF Educ.
  578 F.2d 858· 10th Cir.· 1978-06-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the school district's actions regarding school closures, bussing, and hiring practices did not violate federal civil rights laws, and affirmed the trial court's judgment.
• Burlington N. Inc. v. The Am. Ry. Supervisors Ass'n
  527 F.2d 216· 7th Cir.· 1975-12-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that employees involved in a dispute before the National Railroad Adjustment Board do not need to be given notice if the award does not adjudicate their individual rights or duties, and that attorneys' fees are recoverable under Section 3 First (p) of the Railway L
• Bennie v. Pastor
  393 F.2d 1· 10th Cir.· 1968-04-08 ·cited 4×
  A release signed for property damage can be avoided due to mutual mistake regarding the existence of personal injuries, even if the absent party who also signed the release is not before the court, especially when state law permits the action to proceed.
• United States v. Hill
  174 F.2d 61· 5th Cir.· 1949-04-27 ·cited 4×
• Blatt v. Goldner
  2011 WL 13108060· S.D. Fla.· 2024-08-21 ·cited 3×
  Plaintiff Eli Blatt sued his business partner Marc Goldner and related parties after Goldner allegedly misrepresented his business prospects and failed to properly title and assign cryptocurrency assets (NFTs and bitcoin miners) purchased with Blatt's funds to their jointly-owned
• Friedman v. Snipes
  345 F. Supp. 2d 1356· S.D. Fla.· 2004-11-09 ·cited 3×
  The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims regarding absentee ballot delivery and counting.
• Duke & Benedict, Inc. v. Wolstein
  1993 WL 274350· M.D. Fla.· 1993-07-15 ·cited 3×
  The court held that adding an indispensable party that destroys diversity jurisdiction requires remand to state court, even if it was the plaintiff's intent to do so.
• Gen. Star Indem. Co. v. Puckit, L.C.
  818 F. Supp. 1526· M.D. Fla.· 1993-04-20 ·cited 3×
  The court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the federal declaratory judgment action was an impermissible attempt at procedural fencing and that the state court action could better resolve all parties' claims.
• In re the Arb. between Tehran-Berkeley Civil & Env't Eng'rs
  888 F.2d 239· 2d Cir.· 1989-10-20 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court correctly determined that TAMS and AFFA executed the contract as joint obligors on behalf of the TAMS-AFFA joint venture, thus establishing the making of an arbitration agreement and compelling arbitration.
• Cas. Indem. Exch. v. High Croft Enters., Inc.
  714 F. Supp. 1190· S.D. Fla.· 1989-06-06 ·cited 3×
  The court held that adding the insurance agent as a party-plaintiff would destroy diversity jurisdiction, and that the insurer's declaratory judgment action constituted improper procedural fencing, warranting dismissal.
• Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. v. Warner
  665 F. Supp. 1549· S.D. Fla.· 1987-07-31 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the defendant did not waive its right to arbitration by filing a prior state court action, and thus denied the motion for summary judgment and preliminary injunction.
• Bernie Bierman v. Tampa Elec. Co.
  604 F.2d 929· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-17 ·cited 3×
  A dismissal for failure to prosecute, even if sua sponte, operates as an adjudication on the merits unless otherwise specified, barring subsequent claims under res judicata.
• Euclid Turnaround Opportunity Fund LP v. Amerant Equip. Fin.
  2020 WL 6472615· S.D. Fla.· 2025-09-22 ·cited 2×
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, finding subject-matter jurisdiction exists based on diversity of citizenship and affirming orders compelling discovery.
• Carolina Pres. P'rs, Inc. v. Wolf Arbin Weinhold
  414 B.R. 754· M.D. Fla.· 2009-03-26 ·cited 2×
  The bankruptcy court abused its discretion in approving a compromise because the purported general partners lacked the legal authority under the partnership agreement and Florida law to encumber partnership property for the benefit of individual creditors.
• Law Offs. of David J. Stern, P.A. v. Scor Reinsurance Corp.
  354 F. Supp. 2d 1338· S.D. Fla.· 2005-02-02 ·cited 2×
  A plaintiff's prior suit against an agent does not constitute a binding election of remedies preventing a subsequent suit against an undisclosed principal, and a tortious interference claim is not barred by the economic loss doctrine if it alleges distinct damages and facts from
• Ferry v. Bekum Am. Corp.
  185 F. Supp. 2d 1285· M.D. Fla.· 2002-02-22 ·cited 2×
  A federal court cannot drop a nondiverse plaintiff over that plaintiff's objection to create or preserve subject matter jurisdiction in a removed case, absent fraudulent joinder.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Phillips Colleges, Inc.
  984 F. Supp. 1464· M.D. Fla.· 1997-08-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the EEOC's delay in filing suit was inexcusable but did not prejudice the defendants because they received prompt notice, and that the EEOC made sufficient good faith efforts to conciliate. The court also granted the EEOC's motion to join a new party, finding
• Yniques v. Cabral
  985 F.2d 1031· 9th Cir.· 1993-02-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) requires a district court to remand a case to state court if a plaintiff joins a non-diverse defendant after removal, and does not permit dismissal.
• Livera v. First Nat'l State Bank OF NEW Jersey
  879 F.2d 1186· 3d Cir.· 1989-07-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the SBA's counterclaim without considering the Poulis factors, and that the Livera group's claims against the SBA were properly dismissed for failure to file an administrative claim. The court also held th
• Imperial OIL OF N.D., Inc. v. Consol. Crude OIL Co.
  851 F.2d 206· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that North Dakota's statutory scheme for oil and gas lease cancellation due to non-payment of royalties supplants traditional equity principles, and the district court did not err in cancelling the leases.
• Tillman v. City OF Milwaukee
  715 F.2d 354· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action for failure to join DILHR, as the EEOC filing requirement is not jurisdictional and DILHR could potentially be joined.
• Riley T. Kelly and Annette A. Kelly v. Commercial Union Ins. Co.
  709 F.2d 973· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to join indispensable parties, in refusing to limit liability based on other insurance proceeds, or in denying the motion to reopen evidence.
• Coman v. Coman
  492 F.2d 273· 3d Cir.· 1974-02-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the husband's brother and sister were not indispensable parties to the alimony award, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding alimony in gross rather than through a trustee.
• Trail Realty, Inc. v. Beckett
  462 F.2d 396· 10th Cir.· 1972-06-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court correctly denied the motion to amend the complaint and correctly denied specific performance because the buyer defaulted on the contract by failing to tender payment by the deadline.
• Hallman v. Safeway Stores
  368 F.2d 400· 5th Cir.· 1966-11-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Trustee and escrow agent were not necessary parties for diversity jurisdiction and that the option was validly exercised, entitling the assignee to specific performance.
• Am. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ryle
  188 F.2d 830· 5th Cir.· 1951-05-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prior decision remains authoritative despite statutory amendments and the adoption of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the suit was therefore wrongly dismissed.
• Emery v. Adams
  179 F.2d 586· 6th Cir.· 1950-02-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the action against both Flakall Corporation and Harry W. Adams individually, as service of process was invalid and venue was improper.
• Krueger v. Cartwright
  996 F.2d 928· 7th Cir.· 1993-06-24 ·cited 1×
  A partially subrogated insurer, whose joinder would destroy diversity jurisdiction, is not an indispensable party and can be dismissed.
• Farrell Constr. Co. v. Jefferson Parish
  896 F.2d 136· 5th Cir.· 1990-03-15 ·cited 1×
  A subcontractor is not an indispensable party when the prime contractor asserts the subcontractor's damages as part of its own claim, especially when state law permits such pass-through claims and no statute grants the subcontractor direct rights against the owner.