Heightened Pleading Standard

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

• Omnipol v. Multinational Def. Servs.
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-10-17
  Omnipol and Elmex, Czech companies, sued federal contractors and U.S. government employees claiming they were defrauded in a scheme involving the sale of weapons to the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM). The court dismissed all claims for failure to meet pleading requiremen
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. Auto Glass Am., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-09-30
  Insurance companies sued an auto glass replacement business and its owner, alleging that the defendants engaged in deceptive practices by pressuring customers into unnecessary windshield replacements, obtaining assignments of benefits without consent, and billing insurers for inf
• Skypoint Advisors, LLC. v. 3 Amigos Prods. LLC.
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-09-23
  The court denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration, finding they failed to demonstrate clear error or manifest injustice in the prior order denying their motion to dismiss.
• Tokio Marine Specialty Ins. Co. v. Ramos
  S.D. Fla.· 2019-09-20
  A request for attorney's fees, even if referencing statutes, does not constitute an affirmative defense and is therefore subject to being stricken.
• Avve, Inc. v. Upstack Techs., Inc.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2019-04-12
  The Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss Count 3 of the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, finding that the allegations of fraud failed to meet the heightened pleading requirements of Superior Court Civil Rule 9(b). The Court excluded an untimely affidavit submitted by the
• Mooney v. Pioneer Natural Res. Co.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2017-10-24
  The Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that the Plaintiff failed to plead common law fraud with the particularity required by Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule 9(b). The Plaintiff was granted leave to amend the complaint.
• Eskridge v. Warden Jim Hutchins
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2017-03-22
  The Superior Court of Delaware held that Section 1983 claims brought in state court must meet the plausibility standard, requiring specific factual allegations to support the claim. The court also affirmed that state law personal injury claims against state employees are barred b
• Abdur Rahaman
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2016-05-04
  The Delaware Superior Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs' claims for negligence and wrongful death were time-barred under Bangladesh's one-year statute of limitations and that plaintiffs failed to state a prima facie case for negligence because d
• In & for New Castle Cnty. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2014-06-06
  The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint's claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and statutory consumer fraud, finding they did not relate back to the original complaint due to a lack of sufficient notice and pre
• Losada v. Norwegian (Bahamas) Ltd.
  252 F. Supp. 772· S.D. Fla.· 2013-12-16
  The court held that affirmative defenses are subject to the same pleading standards as complaints and granted in part the plaintiff's motion to strike.
• Baker v. Kelly Smith, LLC
  836 F. Supp. 2d 677· M.D. Fla.· 2013-10-10
  The court held that a plaintiff alleging they were forced to resign for opposing racial discrimination sufficiently states a claim for retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, but fails to state a claim for race discrimination under § 1981 if the alleged discrimination was not directe
• Signori v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n
  1990 WL 132554· S.D. Fla.· 2013-03-27
  An assignee of a mortgage cannot be held liable under TILA for violations that were not apparent on the face of the disclosure documents at the time of the assignment.
• In & for New Castle Cnty.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2012-05-15
  The Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. Claims against SG and SGH were dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Section 1201(a)(4) claim was dismissed for failing to meet the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b). However, certain al
• Koch v. Royal Wine Merchs., Ltd.
  649 F. App'x 217· S.D. Fla.· 2012-03-21
  The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants for the state law claims and that the RICO claim was not pleaded with sufficient particularity, warranting dismissal of the entire complaint.
• Staco v. Miami-Dade Cnty.
  536 F. Supp. 2d 1301· S.D. Fla.· 2008-02-26
  The court held that officers had arguable probable cause for the arrest, entitling them to qualified immunity, and thus dismissed the federal claims.
• Amnesty Int'l v. Battle
  484 F. Supp. 2d 1279· S.D. Fla.· 2007-04-24
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to overcome the defendants' qualified immunity defense, as the allegations were too vague and conclusory to establish a violation of clearly established constitutional rights.
• St. Louis v. Sands
  401 F. Supp. 2d 1351· S.D. Fla.· 2005-11-08
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and for retaliation under the First Amendment, thus granting the motion to dismiss.
• Komando v. Adriazola
  284 F. Supp. 2d 1368· S.D. Fla.· 2003-09-04
  The court held that the plaintiff adequately stated a claim for violation of a constitutional right and that the defendants are not entitled to dismissal based on qualified immunity at this stage.
• Premier Foods of Bruton, Inc. v. City of Orlando
  979 F. Supp. 2d 313· M.D. Fla.· 2000-04-19
• Harris v. McDonald's Corp.
  901 F. Supp. 1552· M.D. Fla.· 1995-04-03
  The court held that while claims based on the FDCA, FDA Rules, Fourteenth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 were properly dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction, a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for racial discrimination in handling the insurance claim was sufficiently pleaded to
• Moore v. Agency FOR Int'l Dev.
  994 F.2d 874· D.C. Cir.· 1993-06-15
  The court held that a pro se plaintiff should be given an opportunity to correct service of process defects and amend his complaint to meet heightened pleading standards, and that the amended venue statute applies to pending cases.
• Boston & Me. Corp. v. Town OF Hampton
  987 F.2d 855· 1st Cir.· 1993-03-05
  The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that New Hampshire law requires actual notice and an opportunity to correct a hazardous condition for municipal liability, and that the district court's application of a heightened pleading standard, even if erroneous, was harmless.
• Grady v. EL Paso Cmty. Coll.
  979 F.2d 1111· 5th Cir.· 1992-12-30
  The court held that a plaintiff stated a First Amendment claim sufficient to deny qualified immunity, but failed to state a claim under the Veterans' Reemployment Rights Act against an individual defendant.
• GTE Data Servs., Inc. v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp.
  717 F. Supp. 1487· M.D. Fla.· 1989-08-03
  The court held that while the complaint sufficiently alleged antitrust violations under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and invoked jurisdiction, it failed to adequately plead market impact and compensable injury, requiring amendment.