Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure Rule 12(H)

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

• Kern v. Standard OIL Co.
  228 F.2d 699· 8th Cir.· 1956-01-10 ·cited 52×
  The court held that if the plaintiff and defendant Hughes were citizens of the same state, the district court lacked jurisdiction, and the case must be dismissed unless the pleadings are amended to establish diversity jurisdiction.
• Blank v. Bitker
  135 F.2d 962· 7th Cir.· 1943-06-10 ·cited 47×
  A defendant does not waive the right to assert lack of personal jurisdiction or improper venue by taking a deposition or obtaining extensions to answer, provided these actions are taken before filing a responsive pleading that includes these defenses.
• Van Sant v. Am. Express Co.
  169 F.2d 355· 3d Cir.· 1947-10-21 ·cited 40×
  The court held that amendments to pleadings to properly allege diversity jurisdiction are permissible, and a statute of limitations defense is waived if not timely pleaded.
• Emich Motors Corp. & U. S. Acceptance Corp. v. Gen. Motors Corp. & Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp.
  229 F.2d 714· 7th Cir.· 1956-01-27 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the defendants to amend their answer to include the statute of limitations defense, and that the cause of action accrued upon notice of cancellation, not its effective date.
• Molnar v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc.
  231 F.2d 684· 9th Cir.· 1956-01-04 ·cited 36×
  A federal court may dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, even on its own initiative, if the pleadings do not affirmatively establish jurisdiction, particularly when fictitious defendants are used to obscure citizenship.
• Shahmoon Indus., Inc. v. Imperato
  338 F.2d 449· 3d Cir.· 1964-11-13 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the record presented sufficient doubt regarding the plaintiff's principal place of business to warrant a further factual inquiry by the district court to determine if diversity jurisdiction was properly established.
• Drabik v. Honorable Thomas F. Murphy
  246 F.2d 408· 2d Cir.· 1957-06-17 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the District Court for the Southern District of New York lost jurisdiction over the action once the transfer to the Eastern District of Louisiana was complete.
• DI Frischia v. N.Y. Cent. R.R. Co.
  279 F.2d 141· 3d Cir.· 1960-06-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a defendant who stipulates to jurisdiction and then participates in extensive pretrial proceedings cannot later seek to dismiss the action based on a jurisdictional defense that was effectively waived.
• Miller v. Leavenworth-Jefferson Elec. Coop., Inc.
  653 F.2d 1378· 10th Cir.· 1981-07-14 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the appeal was timely and that the district court properly dismissed the employer to preserve diversity jurisdiction, affirming the jury's allocation of fault.
• Groninger v. Merrill E. Davison
  364 F.2d 638· 8th Cir.· 1966-08-26 ·cited 24×
  A federal court in a diversity action must apply state law to determine when an action is commenced for the purpose of tolling the statute of limitations, even if the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide a different method for commencement.
• ROE v. Sears
  132 F.2d 829· 7th Cir.· 1943-01-15 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the defendant waived the statute of limitations defense by failing to plead it in its answer, and that the attorney's estate could recover the reasonable value of services rendered on a contingent fee basis if the client ultimately recovered.
• Zuckerman v. McCULLEY
  170 F.2d 1015· 8th Cir.· 1948-12-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim against the estate was barred by Missouri's one-year statute of limitations for exhibiting demands, as the filing of the complaint did not constitute a legally exhibited claim under state law. The appeal from the order quashing service wa
• Canadian Indem. Co. & Harry C. Dow v. Republic Indem. Co. of Am.
  222 F.2d 601· 9th Cir.· 1955-03-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the appellee failed to demonstrate the requisite amount in controversy for federal jurisdiction, even with policy limits stated, as no injury was alleged.
• Agrashell, Inc. v. Hammons Prods. Co.
  352 F.2d 443· 8th Cir.· 1965-11-09 ·cited 18×
  A party holding an exclusive license to a patent, but not an assignment of the entire patent or an undivided share, cannot sue for infringement in its own name without joining the patent owner as an indispensable party.
• Wyrough & Loser, Inc. v. Pelmor Labs., Inc.
  376 F.2d 543· 3d Cir.· 1967-03-02 ·cited 17×
  A party participating in a preliminary injunction hearing waives the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction, even if they could have filed a timely motion to dismiss.
• Yeldell v. Tutt
  913 F.2d 533· 8th Cir.· 1990-09-07 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that the Yeldells established diversity jurisdiction, the Tutts waived their personal jurisdiction defense, and there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings on defamation, malice, damages, and Capitol Ameri
• Weaver v. Bowers
  657 F.2d 1356· 3d Cir.· 1981-09-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendants waived their defense of nonretroactivity by failing to raise it timely, but exercised its inherent power to consider the issue due to unusual circumstances and the need for evenhandedness in justice.
• Pila v. G. R. Leasing & Rental Corp.
  551 F.2d 941· 1st Cir.· 1977-04-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant waived its defense of insufficient service of process by failing to raise it in its initial motion to dismiss or answer.
• Gulf Ref. Co. v. Fetschan
  130 F.2d 129· 6th Cir.· 1942-06-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was not inconsistent, as the finding of a lease breach due to fumes was sufficient to support the judgment.
• Wineberg v. Park
  321 F.2d 214· 9th Cir.· 1963-08-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence supported the trial court's finding of an oral contract for the sale of lumber, and that the defendant's defenses, including the Statute of Frauds, were either waived or unsupported.
• Moonblatt v. Kosmin
  139 F.2d 412· 3d Cir.· 1943-12-06 ·cited 12×
  A party waives their right to object to a bankruptcy referee's summary jurisdiction if they do not raise the objection promptly, which is considered equivalent to consent. However, if the claim involves disputed facts and reasonable room for controversy, a plenary proceeding is r
• Edward B. Marks Music Corp. v. Jerry Vogel Music Co., Inc.
  140 F.2d 268· 2d Cir.· 1944-01-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff, as an assignee of a renewal copyright owner, is a real party in interest and can sue for infringement, even if other co-owners are not joined. The judgment must be modified to reflect only the plaintiff's share of damages.
• Manway Constr. Co., Inc. v. Hous. Auth. OF The City OF Hartford
  711 F.2d 501· 2d Cir.· 1983-07-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Authority's claims against the Bank, vacating the contempt order.
• S. Suburban Safeway Lines, Inc. v. Carcards, Inc.
  256 F.2d 934· 2d Cir.· 1958-06-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the involuntary bankruptcy petition outright, as the defects were not jurisdictional and leave to amend should have been granted.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Swift & Co.
  233 F.2d 226· 8th Cir.· 1956-05-04 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the state court proceeding due to the prohibition in 28 U.S.C. § 2283, as the Board failed to meet any of the statutory exceptions.
• Saper v. Hague
  186 F.2d 592· 2d Cir.· 1951-01-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the objection to the subpoena's validity due to insufficient witness fee and mileage was timely raised and not waived.
• Great Prize, S.A. v. Mariner Shipping PTY.
  967 F.2d 157· 5th Cir.· 1992-07-30 ·cited 5×
  A district court has jurisdiction to dismiss a case on forum non conveniens grounds even when there is a dispute over ownership of attached property, and an arbitration clause does not preclude such a dismissal when all parties are foreign nationals.
• Brooks v. Woods
  181 F.2d 716· 9th Cir.· 1950-04-26 ·cited 5×
  The court held that issues not properly raised in the trial court or on appeal, and issues already decided adversely in prior cases, do not warrant reversal.
• 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.
• Reynolds v. Wabash R.R. Co.
  236 F.2d 387· 8th Cir.· 1956-09-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in vacating an order that improperly added parties to destroy diversity jurisdiction and in dismissing the case for want of prosecution.
• Balachander v. Ncl (Bahamas) Ltd.
  800 F. Supp. 2d 1196· S.D. Fla.· 2011-08-05 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) applied to all claims, limiting recovery to pecuniary damages, and dismissed claims not cognizable under DOHSA or for which no duty was owed. The court also found a doctor waived personal jurisdiction defense and that a c
• Broad. Co. OF THE Carolinas v. Flair Broad. Corp.
  892 F.2d 372· 4th Cir.· 1989-12-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the 'weight of the contacts' test is the appropriate standard for determining venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), and that the defendants did not waive their right to object to venue.
• Minkoff v. Steven JRS., Inc.
  260 F.2d 588· 2d Cir.· 1958-11-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the alleged bankrupt waived the defense of insufficient specificity in the bankruptcy petition by filing an answer, and that the petition, even if general, stated a claim.
• Fallbrook Pub. Util. Dist. v. United States Dist. Court
  202 F.2d 942· 9th Cir.· 1953-03-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner lacked standing to challenge the executive branch's expenditure of funds and had waived its objection to the venue transfer.
• Anderson & Brown Co. v. Anderson
  161 F.2d 974· 7th Cir.· 1947-05-23 ·cited 2×
  A contract is unenforceable for vagueness and indefiniteness if essential elements, such as price, are not ascertainable with reasonable certainty.
• Aguila v. Rqm+ LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-08-12
  The court held that plaintiffs' attempted substituted service on foreign defendants was improper because it was not authorized by a court order as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) after removal.
• Smith v. Fla. Agric. & Mech. Univ. Bd. of Trs.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-11
  The court held that transferring the case to the Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee Division, is appropriate for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.
• Smith v. Fla. Agric. & Mech. Univ. Bd. of Trs.
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-09-11
  The court granted the motion to transfer venue because the Northern District of Florida is a more convenient forum for the parties and witnesses, and it is in the interest of justice.
• Accelerant Specialty Ins. Co. v. Tran
  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.
• Hunters Run Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Centerline Real Est., LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-09-15
  The court granted the Plaintiff's motion for default final judgment, awarding damages, costs, and attorney's fees due to the Defendant's failure to appear or defend the action.
• Dominguez v. Sasson
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-07-04
  The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff adequately stated claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, and that the defendant had not waived personal jurisdiction.
• Hyundai Motor Am. Corp. v. N. Am. Auto. Servs., Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-12-08
  A motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is untimely and waived if filed after a responsive pleading, such as an answer.
• Wichman v. Cnty. of Volusia
  110 F. Supp. 2d 1354· M.D. Fla.· 2000-01-24
  A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily waived her ADA claims, precluding summary judgment.