-
844 F.2d 1050·
3d Cir.·
1988-04-26
·cited 1×
The court held that the developer was not an indispensable party to the contractor's suit to enforce a joint and several arbitration award against the bank, and that the contractor's motion to intervene, while potentially lacking grounds for intervention as of right, should not h
-
704 F.2d 585·
11th Cir.·
1983-05-02
·cited 1×
The court held that joint obligors are not indispensable parties in a breach of contract action, and thus the trial court did not err in proceeding without joining a co-lessee whose joinder would destroy diversity jurisdiction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-12-15
The court held that the fraud and securities fraud claims should be dismissed for failure to meet pleading standards, but the breach of contract claim should proceed.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-10-15
The court held that the living trusts, as the actual owners of the insured property, are indispensable parties who must be joined in the action.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-10-10
The court held that a plaintiff must sufficiently allege citizenship of all parties to establish diversity jurisdiction, and allegations based on information and belief are insufficient.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-08-26
The court held that individual plaintiffs' claims arising from separate interactions with law enforcement officers do not satisfy the requirements for permissive joinder under Rule 20 and must be severed. However, claims against the City challenging the constitutionality of a noi
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-08-20
Unnamed class members are not indispensable parties in a declaratory judgment action brought by an insurer against the insured and named class representatives.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-08-19
A court can grant complete relief in a damages action even if a non-party might also have claims, and 'inconsistent obligations' under Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(ii) refers to conflicting court orders, not merely inconsistent adjudications.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-05-30
State Farm and Rhonda Looper are indispensable parties who must be joined in this action, while Bobbi Jo Shireman, Jonathan Villalobos, and Sammy Hernandez are not indispensable.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-05-05
The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss in part, dismissing several claims with prejudice and others without prejudice, requiring plaintiff to amend his complaint and join a necessary party.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-04-08
The court held that Blue Sand Capital LLC must be dismissed as a party because it is dissolved and canceled, and that Patrick Horsman lacks standing to bring certain claims as he was neither a member nor an economic interest owner. The court also dismissed claims added without le
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-03-14
The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding the complaint adequately stated claims for negligence and malpractice and was not a shotgun pleading.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-02-05
The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing because the requested relief would require the defendant to violate Florida law and would not redress the alleged injuries.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-09-17
The court held that it retains subject-matter jurisdiction over the case because the intervening SBG Entities are not indispensable parties under Rule 19(b), despite the destruction of complete diversity.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-09-10
The court held that Day Late Enterprises, Inc. was misjoined as a party and was dismissed from the action because it was not a necessary party under Rule 19 and did not meet the criteria for permissive joinder under Rule 20.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-06-13
A Florida trustee sued a Nevada trust company for breach of fiduciary duty after the company was appointed as successor trustee of a trust by a Nevada court that subsequently lacked personal jurisdiction over the original trustee, resulting in the company's sale of Florida proper
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-05-21
The court granted Wright National's unopposed motion to dismiss, finding the breach of contract claim failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-02-21
The court held that Plaintiff plausibly stated claims for fraud and conspiracy against certain defendants, and quasi-contractual claims against Onecom, but dismissed claims against other defendants and a statutory claim due to procedural issues.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-12-22
The court granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the primary insurer was an indispensable party that could not be joined, and denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend as futile.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-11-07
Venue is improper in the Middle District of Florida because no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there, and the injured third-party claimants are indispensable parties who cannot be joined, requiring dismissal of the action.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-11-07
Head Kandy LLC sued former officer Kayla McNeill in federal court in Florida for allegedly misappropriating company funds through fraudulent expense reimbursements, unauthorized payroll charges, and disparaging statements that harmed the business. The court granted in part and de
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-07-24
The court held that transfer to the Southern District of Florida was appropriate for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-07-21
The court held that Trendtex Holding has standing to sue for copyright infringement, but Trendtex Fabrics does not. Narmada Textile is not an indispensable party.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-04-12
The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding it had personal jurisdiction over the defendants and that the complaint sufficiently stated claims for trademark infringement.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-01-27
The court granted defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that improper defendants were named, federal claims failed to state a claim, and an indispensable party would destroy diversity jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-11-15
A valid and enforceable forum-selection clause dictates the venue for claims between the contracting parties, even if other parties are involved in the litigation.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-08-23
The court held that the Town's antitrust claim was ripe for adjudication and that the City's alleged anticompetitive conduct under the 1989 agreement was not shielded by state action immunity.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-07-12
The court held that the defendant failed to prove the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement, and therefore, the motion to compel arbitration was denied. The court also denied the motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party or failure to state a claim
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-05-12
The court held that the defendants' motions to dismiss were granted in part and denied in part, denying collateral estoppel and indispensable party defenses, and finding the alter ego and fraudulent transfer claims sufficiently pleaded.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2022-05-04
The court held that the Florida E-Filing Authority is an arm of the state and thus immune from suit, but its chair, Rushing, is a proper defendant for injunctive relief. The court also held that Clerk Forman is not a judicial officer for purposes of the FCIA and that docketing co
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-02-25
The court held that the plaintiff's allegations were insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction, and the case was dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-12-01
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead claims for false advertising and cybersquatting, but did adequately plead common law unfair competition. The court also denied the motion to dismiss for shotgun pleading and failure to join an indispensable party, an
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-10-25
The court held that personal jurisdiction was established by service of process in Florida, the complaint stated a valid claim for defamation, the defendant was not a media defendant requiring pre-suit notice, and the plaintiff's company was not an indispensable party.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-10-25
The court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Kouri Group, a necessary and indispensable party whose presence destroyed diversity, could not be joined.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-10-13
The court held that a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied because the complaint sufficiently alleges trademark infringement, and a motion to dismiss for failure to join a party is denied, but the plaintiff must amend the complaint to join the necessary party.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-09-22
The court held that ROK's claims must be dismissed for failure to comply with a mandatory pre-suit mediation clause in the parties' agreement, but dismissal under Rule 19 for failure to join an indispensable party was not warranted.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-09-22
The court indicated it would grant the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if the appellate court relinquishes jurisdiction, finding Kouri Group to be an indispensable party whose joinder would destroy diversity.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-08-23
The court denied most motions to dismiss, finding the complaint adequately pleaded claims against the Lawyer Defendants and that service on Deighan was improper but could be perfected. The court rejected arguments regarding shotgun pleading, veil piercing, and indispensable parti
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-07-08
The court held that the defendants failed to establish that the other signatories of the letter were indispensable parties under Rule 19.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-04-23
The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs had adequately stated claims for breach of contract, tortious interference, and other causes of action, and that the claims were ripe and properly pleaded.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-02-09
A court may permit joinder of a non-diverse defendant after removal if the Hensgens factors weigh in favor of joinder, even if it destroys subject matter jurisdiction and requires remand.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-10-19
The court held that Plaintiffs' claims against Wyndham were not objectively frivolous and their positions were fairly debatable, thus denying Wyndham's motion for Rule 11 sanctions.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-09-24
The court held that a stateless defendant destroys diversity jurisdiction, and that the defendant was not a dispensable party, requiring remand.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-02-28
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over claims against defendant Yates because he is a citizen of Florida, destroying complete diversity, and he is a dispensable party.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-10-09
The court granted the defendants' motion to join Denis Dreni as a counter-defendant.
-
244 F.R.D. 137·
S.D. Fla.·
2012-06-13
The court granted defendants' motion for leave to amend their answer to correct a scrivener's error, finding good cause under Rule 16(b) and that justice required leave under Rule 15(a)(2).
-
431 F. Supp. 2d 1238·
M.D. Fla.·
2006-05-03
The court held that the tort exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) did not apply because the employee was on a non-essential personal errand when the accident occurred, and thus Bank Indonesia was immune from suit. The court also denied the plaintiff's request
-
131 F.R.D. 94·
M.D. Fla.·
1993-11-12
-
990 F.2d 1·
1st Cir.·
1993-03-12
The court affirmed the district court's judgment on the counterclaim, awards of attorneys' fees, and sanctions, finding no cognizable error in the proceedings.
-
982 F.2d 1312·
9th Cir.·
1992-12-24
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action because the Hoopa and Yurok tribes were indispensable parties who could not be joined due to sovereign immunity, and that the denial of leave to amend was proper as the proposed amendment