Motion For More Definite Statement

119 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Fed. Deposit Ins. v. Mintz
  816 F. Supp. 1541· S.D. Fla.· 1993-03-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that 12 U.S.C. § 1821(k) preempts federal common law but not state law regarding director and officer liability, and that Florida common law requires gross negligence for such liability.
• Donovan v. Am. Leader Newspapers, Inc.
  524 F. Supp. 1144· M.D. Fla.· 1981-10-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the complaint stated a claim for relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and that the defendant could not be dismissed as a party defendant, and that the complaint was sufficiently definite.
• Five Point Co. v. Allie R. Neeley
  157 So. 2d 526· Fla. 3d DCA· 1963-11-05 ·cited 3×
  The court held that summary judgment for the appellee was proper because the appellant's affidavits did not contradict or avoid the appellee's claim, especially given the destruction of corporate records.
• Irizarry v. State
  390 So. 3d 201· Fla. 3d DCA· 2024-05-01 ·cited 2×
  In a Jimmy Ryce Act civil commitment proceeding, the Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District dismissed Fernando Irizarry's appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that appeals from such civil proceedings are limited to final orders or those specifically enumerated in Fl
• Greentree Fin. Grp., Inc. v. Long Fortune Valley Tourism
  824 F. Supp. 2d 1363· S.D. Fla.· 2011-05-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendant Halter because the plaintiff failed to allege or present sufficient facts demonstrating minimum contacts with Florida.
• Jane Doe No. 5 v. Epstein
  611 F. Supp. 2d 1339· S.D. Fla.· 2009-02-12 ·cited 2×
  Jane Doe No. 5 sued Jeffrey Epstein for sexual assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422 (coercion and enticement to sexual activity) based on allegations that Epstein engaged in a scheme to sexually assault economically
• In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
  718 So. 2d 795· Fla.· 1998-10-01 ·cited 2×
  The Florida Supreme Court adopted proposed amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.140(b) and 1.330(a) submitted by the Civil Procedure Rules Committee. The amendments clarified the use of depositions in court proceedings and made a minor correction to the wording of Rul
• Cal. Int'l Chem. Co. v. Neptune Pool Serv., Inc.
  770 F. Supp. 1530· M.D. Fla.· 1991-07-02 ·cited 2×
  The court denied motions to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs adequately pleaded claims for RICO violations, antitrust violations, and tortious interference with business relationships, and that defendants were not entitled to sovereign immunity or state action immunity.
• In the Interest of A.S.
  586 So. 2d 1072· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-06-05 ·cited 2×
  The Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's dismissal of a dependency petition alleging sexual abuse of a deaf child, holding that a dependency petition should not be dismissed for vagueness regarding the date of abuse without findings concerning the state
• Cas. Indem. Exch. v. Small Fry, Inc.
  452 F.2d 741· S.D. Fla.· 1989-03-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a 'more definite statement' filed in the underlying action must be considered with the complaint to determine an insurer's duty to defend, and that the sexual abuse exclusion in the policy relieved the insurer of its duty.
• Balogh's of Coral Gables, Inc. v. Getz
  510 F. Supp. 741· S.D. Fla.· 1981-03-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that allegations of an agreement between a manufacturer's distributor and a retailer to exclude a competitor do not constitute a per se violation of the Sherman Act, but rather a vertical restraint subject to the rule of reason, and that the complaint failed to all
• Silvia v. Castle Key Ins. Co.
  362 So. 3d 324· Fla. 1st DCA· 2023-06-14 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court vacated a trial court order that allowed an insurance company to invoke an appraisal clause and halt litigation. The court found that the insurer had waived its right to appraisal by actively participating in the litigation, which was inconsistent with its rig
• Diaz v. Cobb
  435 F. Supp. 2d 1206· S.D. Fla.· 2006-06-20 ·cited 1×
  The court held that claims under the VRA and NVRA regarding voter registration form requirements fail to state a claim, and constitutional claims are dismissed for vagueness, requiring a more definite statement.
• Tuckish v. Pompano Motor Co.
  337 F. Supp. 2d 1313· S.D. Fla.· 2004-09-23 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint sufficiently stated causes of action for violations of the Odometer Act, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and common law fraud, thus denying the defendant's motion to dismiss.
• Bender v. CenTrust Mortg. Corp.
  833 F. Supp. 1525· S.D. Fla.· 1992-07-06 ·cited 1×
  The court denied motions to dismiss most counts, finding that the D'Oench doctrine and related statutes did not bar the claims at this stage and that agency allegations were sufficient to proceed.
• Price v. Hewitt
  220 So. 2d 691· Fla. 3d DCA· 1969-03-18 ·cited 1×
  Price appeals an order striking two counts of his counterclaim as sham and dismissing a third count. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the striking of count 1 for lack of evidentiary support, affirmed the striking of count 2 based on competent evidence of its lack of me
• Indus. Med. Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Colonial Press OF Miami, Inc.
  181 So. 2d 19· Fla. 3d DCA· 1965-12-07 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court affirmed the lower court's order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint, finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged the existence of an oral contract. The court noted that a defendant unsure of the contract's specifics could seek a more definite statemen
• Old Jamestown Storage LLC v. Cap. Max Grp., LLC
  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.
• Al Hamman v. Univ. of Cent. Fla. Bd. of Trs.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-15
  In a procedural order issued during case management in an employment or civil rights matter filed by Al Hamman against the University of Central Florida Board of Trustees, the District Court granted plaintiff's request for email notification and extended the deadline to respond t
• Hammond v. W. Express, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-12
  A request for affirmative relief, such as leave to amend, is not properly made within a response to a motion.
• Phillips v. Sitaras
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-07-02
  A motion for a more definite statement is denied when the pleading is not so vague or ambiguous that the opposing party cannot reasonably prepare a response, especially when the party has previously answered similar allegations and possesses personal knowledge of the facts.
• Brooks v. Pscu, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-11
  The court held that the fraud alert exemption to the TCPA does not warrant dismissal on the face of the complaint, but the plaintiff must replead her claims with greater specificity and lacks standing for injunctive relief.
• 600 Cleveland, LLC v. Bank of Am., N.A.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-28
  The court held that a breach of contract counterclaim and a recoupment counterclaim were sufficiently pleaded, but an accounting counterclaim was not. The court also struck one affirmative defense as improper and denied motions to strike others.
• Ramindesign, LLC v. Skarzynski
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-10-16
  The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing Count III without prejudice for failure to state a claim and granting leave to amend, while denying dismissal for Counts V and VI based on independent tort doctrine, ownership, and notice.
• Aymara Sorhegui v. Park E. Home Owners Ass'n, Inc.
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2024-08-28
  The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the homeowners association, and the appellate court affirmed because the owner failed to demonstrate any abuse of discretion regarding the motion for more definite statement, any irregularity or prejudice from the intr
• Herman v. The Mr. Cooper Grp. Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-20
  The court held that the Second Amended Complaint was a shotgun pleading and ordered Plaintiffs to file a new, complete amended complaint that complies with Rule 8 pleading standards.
• Bryant Bey v. The Hous. Auth. of the City of Winter Park
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-12-12
  The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report, dismissing claims against judicial defendants with prejudice and other claims without prejudice due to shotgun pleading, granting leave to amend.
• Trapenard v. Clester
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-09-22
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion for default judgment against all defendants because the motion failed to address prior court orders and contained numerous deficiencies in pleading and proof.
• Publix Super Mkts., Inc. v. ACE Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-09-15
  Publix Super Markets, Inc. sought declaratory judgments and breach of contract damages from multiple insurance companies regarding their alleged duty to defend and indemnify it in approximately 61 opioid-related lawsuits pending since 2017. The court dismissed counts related to t
• TrendTex Fabrics, Ltd v. Bonnie Brown Designs, Inc.
  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.
• Kaleta v. City of Holmes Beach
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-06-02
  A successive motion to dismiss under Rule 12 is barred if the defenses raised were available in a prior Rule 12 motion and not raised.
• Am. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Fortun
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-03-09
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently alleged material misrepresentations to state a claim for rescission of the insurance policy, and thus denied the motion to dismiss.
• Piper Jacob, Inc. v. Ohio Sec. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-11-18
  The court held that the complaint, when viewed with its attachments, stated a plausible claim for breach of contract, denying the motion to dismiss.
• Millstein v. Holtz
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-08-23
  The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss or for a more definite statement, finding the amended complaint stated plausible claims for relief.
• O.E. Wheel Distribs., LLC v. Mobile Hi-Tech Wheels, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-07-25
  The court held that the amended complaint, which combined direct and indirect infringement theories in a single count, constituted a shotgun pleading and was dismissed without prejudice, but it was not so vague as to prevent Defendants from reasonably preparing a response.
• Am. Associated Grp., Ltd. v. Tien
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-05-11
  The court affirmed the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, overruling defendants' objections and ordering the consolidation of cases and entry of renewed judgments.
• Martinez v. Miami Child's. Health Sys., Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-05-09
  The court granted the plaintiff's motion for a more definite statement because the counterclaim was too vague and ambiguous to allow the plaintiff to reasonably prepare a response.
• Kates v. Nocco
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-04-28
  The court held that the defendant's affirmative defenses were sufficiently pled to put the plaintiff on notice and therefore denied the plaintiff's motion to strike or for a more definite statement.
• Zhukovskiy v. Nat'l Bank of Ukraine
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-02-22
  The Court affirmed and adopted in part the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and staying all pretrial deadlines pending resolution of FSIA defenses.
• Coney v. Fowler
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-02-03
  The court granted the defendants' motion for a more definite statement because the plaintiff's complaint was vague, ambiguous, and constituted a shotgun pleading.
• Bargoot v. The Sch. Dist. of Palm Beach Cnty.
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-02-01
  The court held that a § 1983 claim based solely on ADA rights is barred, a failure to plead a similarly situated comparator warrants dismissal without prejudice, and punitive damages are not recoverable against a school board under the ADAAA.
• Rose v. Zingale
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-11-30
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was a shotgun pleading and granted the defendants' motion for a more definite statement.
• VPR Brands, LP v. Hqdtech USA LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-10-28
  The court denied defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint, finding it sufficiently pleaded patent infringement, but denied plaintiff's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint.
• Kumar v. KRS Global Biotechnology, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-09-27
  The court held that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act, but failed to plead sufficient facts to establish the defendants' fiduciary status under ERISA. The ERISA claim was dismissed without prejudice.
• Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. v. Timeshare Lawyers, P.A.
  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
• Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. v. Timeshare Lawyers, P.A.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-08-20
  The court denied motions to dismiss for most lawyer defendants, finding the complaint sufficiently pleaded claims and that Rule 9(b) did not apply to all claims. The court granted dismissal for one defendant due to improper service.
• Kuba v. Disney Fin. Servs., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-07-30
  The district court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss all five claims brought by the former employee. The court found that the complaint sufficiently stated plausible claims for relief under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Act, the California False Claims Act, the Fl
• Nesbit v. Dayi
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-07-29
  The court held that the plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint was not an impermissible shotgun pleading, denying defendants' motions to dismiss or for a more definite statement.
• Schwartz v. Adp, LLC.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-07-26
  The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing several counts without prejudice and allowing repleading.
• Jolly v. Hoegh Autoliners Shipping AS
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-06-29
  The court held that firefighters' negligence claims against the shipowners and those who negligently started the fire are plausible under general maritime law, and that spouses may recover for loss of consortium.