-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-05-02
A party seeking to amend pleadings after a scheduling order deadline must demonstrate good cause, which requires diligence; absent good cause, the court need not consider Rule 15 factors, and amendment may be denied due to undue delay or prejudice.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-03-15
The court held that a party is not required to provide a detailed expert report under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) for witnesses not retained as experts, and any failure to provide sufficient disclosures under Rule 26(a)(2)(C) for non-retained witnesses was harmless.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-03-12
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove negligence because they did not establish Amzim's duty, a breach of that duty, causation, or damages, and the owner failed to mitigate damages.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-11-01
Indemnification is not an appropriate remedy for surveyors in property damage cases, and RJA is required to respond to Goodloe's claims.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-12-18
The court held that certain opinions of the plaintiff's rebuttal expert exceeded the scope of rebuttal and improperly supplemented the plaintiff's case-in-chief, and therefore granted the defendant's motion to limit.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-16
The court held that the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint, including claims for negligence, gross negligence, breach of contract, and breach of implied warranty of workmanlike service, should be denied.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-10-11
The court held that the defendants' negligence claim was barred by the maritime Economic Loss Rule due to contractual privity, and their unjust enrichment claim failed because it alleged the existence of an express contract.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2017-05-30
Summary judgment was granted for both the insurer and the boatyard, as the yacht's submersion was caused by pre-existing conditions and the owner's neglect, falling under policy exclusions and not attributable to the defendants' actions.
-
585 F. Supp. 1202·
S.D. Fla.·
1988-04-01
-
670 F.2d 61·
6th Cir.·
1982-01-28
A tariff provision limiting demurrage fees is valid if customers have a fair opportunity to choose coverage levels, and does not violate the principle that towing companies cannot exempt themselves from all liability for negligence.
-
451 F.2d 188·
4th Cir.·
1971-11-15
The court held that the district court correctly found a breach of implied warranty and properly extinguished the subrogation lien.
-
36 Fla. Supp. 137·
Hillsborough Cty. Cir. Ct.·
1971-06-21
A longshoreman injured when a safety net fell in a ship's hold sued the ship owner (Sidarma). The court denied summary judgment for both the ship owner and the injured plaintiff, finding genuine issues of fact regarding unseaworthiness and negligence, but granted summary judgment
-
410 F.2d 78·
2d Cir.·
1969-05-01
The court held that the jury's verdict finding the shipowner negligent was reasonable and supported by circumstantial evidence, and that the stevedore breached its warranty of workmanlike performance.
-
324 F.2d 628·
2d Cir.·
1963-11-19
The court held that the uncovered batten well rendered the vessel unseaworthy and that the stevedoring company breached its implied warranty of workmanlike service.
-
274 F.2d 314·
2d Cir.·
1960-02-02
The court held that the trial court did not err in finding that the respondents were not prejudiced by the late filing of the libels, and that the evidence of negligence was sufficient.