Notice Pleading

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

• Am. Honda Motor Co. v. Motorcycle Info. Network, Inc.
  390 F. Supp. 2d 1170· M.D. Fla.· 2005-05-10 ·cited 44×
  The court held that claims for breach of contract implied in law (quasi contract) and constructive fraud fail to state a claim, but other claims, including breach of oral agreement, deceptive trade practices, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, are not preempted by the Unifor
• Gerard and Gemma Brault v. Town OF Milton
  527 F.2d 730· 2d Cir.· 1975-02-24 ·cited 42×
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Blake Constr. Co., Inc.
  663 F.2d 272· D.C. Cir.· 1981-08-17 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the Board could not enforce portions of its order premised on violations not alleged in the complaint or fully litigated, as this violated due process. However, a broad cease and desist order was justified by the company's egregious conduct.
• Molnar v. Gulfcoast Transit Co.
  371 F.2d 639· 5th Cir.· 1967-01-19 ·cited 40×
  The court held that a seaman's libel should not be dismissed for laches based solely on the pleadings when the allegations suggest the shipowner had sufficient knowledge and was not prejudiced by the delay.
• United States v. $39
  801 F.2d 1210· 10th Cir.· 1986-09-17 ·cited 39×
  Civil forfeiture complaints under 21 U.S.C. § 881 must comply with Supplemental Rule E(2)(a), requiring specific factual allegations to support an inference of forfeiture, not just notice pleading.
• Sparkman v. McFARLIN
  601 F.2d 261· 7th Cir.· 1979-05-02 ·cited 39×
  The court held that a private person can be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for conspiring with an immune state judge, provided the conspiracy is alleged with particularity. The opinion emphasizes that conclusory allegations are insufficient and require factual support demonstratin
• Control Data Corp. v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp.
  421 F.2d 323· 8th Cir.· 1970-02-02 ·cited 39×
  The court denied permission to docket interlocutory appeals because the issues regarding the admissibility and reference to consent decrees in antitrust litigation were not ripe for decision at the pleading stage and required a full factual record.
• United States v. City OF Philadelphia
  644 F.2d 187· 3d Cir.· 1980-12-29 ·cited 38×
  The dissenting judge argues that the case warrants en banc review because the panel decision conflicts with prior circuit precedent and Supreme Court authority regarding the Attorney General's authority to bring suit and the pleading standards applicable to the government. The di
• Amerigo Padovani v. Honorable Walter Bruchhausen
  293 F.2d 546· 2d Cir.· 1961-07-31 ·cited 38×
  The court held that while a preclusion order may be appropriate for failing to comply with definite pre-trial directions, the specific directions in this case were too vague to justify the order.
• John H. Redfield in Bankruptcy of Anthony Cairo v. Cont'l Cas. Corp.
  818 F.2d 596· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-06 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the attorney's carelessness in miscalculating the deadline for filing a notice of appeal did not constitute excusable neglect, and the district court abused its discretion in granting an extension.
• Gooley v. Mobil OIL Corp.
  851 F.2d 513· 1st Cir.· 1988-07-13 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted for breach of contract, violation of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, or violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.
• Perington Wholesale, Inc. v. Burger King Corp.
  631 F.2d 1369· 10th Cir.· 1979-10-31 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the notice of appeal, despite its ambiguity, sufficiently indicated an intent to appeal the dismissal of Carpenter from the suit, and thus the appeal was validly taken.
• Elliott v. Thomas
  937 F.2d 338· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-15 ·cited 34×
  A defendant's denial of wrongdoing is not a collateral issue and thus not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine; qualified immunity protects officials from trial when the law was not clearly established.
• Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil OIL Co.
  866 F.2d 1149· 9th Cir.· 1989-01-31 ·cited 34×
  The court held that Ascon adequately pleaded a claim under CERCLA by alleging all prima facie elements and sufficient facts, but erred in dismissing the RCRA claim due to improper notice allegations.
• Titus v. Mercedes Benz of N. Am.
  695 F.2d 746· 3d Cir.· 1982-12-13 ·cited 34×
  Dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute, based on non-compliance with an overly burdensome and unreasonable pretrial order, is an abuse of discretion and warrants reversal.
• McGUIRE v. Sadler
  337 F.2d 902· 5th Cir.· 1964-10-19 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over the case, reversing the dismissal for want of jurisdiction.
• Gooding v. Warner-Lambert Co.
  744 F.2d 354· 3d Cir.· 1984-09-28 ·cited 32×
  Pleading the issuance of a right-to-sue letter is not a jurisdictional prerequisite for maintaining a Title VII employment discrimination claim, and a district court abuses its discretion by denying leave to amend a complaint to allege such issuance when justice requires.
• Brandon v. Dist. of Columbia Bd. of Parole
  734 F.2d 56· D.C. Cir.· 1984-05-08 ·cited 32×
  A pro se complaint filed in forma pauperis should not be dismissed sua sponte unless it is frivolous or malicious; a complaint with an arguable basis in law and fact is not frivolous.
• Duane v. Altenburg
  297 F.2d 515· 7th Cir.· 1962-01-10 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the complaint failed to state a claim for fraudulent violation of fiduciary duty because allegations of fraud were not pleaded with the required particularity under Rule 9(b) and Illinois law.
• Mitchell v. E-Z WAY Towers, Inc.
  269 F.2d 126· 5th Cir.· 1959-07-30 ·cited 31×
  The court should affirm the order for a more definite statement but reverse the dismissal and remand to allow the plaintiff time to comply.
• Eye Care Int'l, Inc. v. Underhill
  92 F. Supp. 2d 1310· M.D. Fla.· 2000-03-31 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a breach of contract claim was sufficiently pleaded and an accounting claim was supported by an alleged fiduciary relationship, but fraud claims were barred by the economic loss rule as they were not independent of the contract.
• Bankest Imports, Inc. v. Isca Corp.
  717 F. Supp. 1537· S.D. Fla.· 1989-07-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a counterclaim for breach of contract could proceed based on implicit obligations, but claims for fraud, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and RICO were dismissed for failure to state a claim or meet pleading requirements, with leave to amend for some.
• Murphy v. White HEN Pantry Co.
  691 F.2d 350· 7th Cir.· 1982-10-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead a breach of contract claim and that no fiduciary duty was owed by the franchisor to the franchisees under Wisconsin law.
• Brewer v. Solovsky
  945 So. 2d 610· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-12-20 ·cited 29×
  Anthony Brewer appeals a trial court's modification of child custody and child support, raising four issues. The court affirmed two issues but reversed on two others: the award of attorney's fees without the attorney's testimony regarding reasonableness, and the sua sponte transf
• Bethel v. Jendoco Constr. Corp.
  570 F.2d 1168· 3d Cir.· 1978-01-16 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985(3), 1986, and Title VII were improperly dismissed on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. However, the § 1983 claim was properly dismissed as the alleged discrimination did not occur under color of state law.
• Sellers v. The Regents OF the Univ. OF Cal.
  432 F.2d 493· 9th Cir.· 1970-09-17 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint, refusing to convene a three-judge court, as there was no genuine threat of irreparable harm or chilling effect on First Amendment rights to warrant injunctive relief.
• Flo-Sun, Inc. v. Kirk
  783 So. 2d 1029· Fla.· 2001-03-29 ·cited 28×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that Chapter 403 (environmental pollution control) did not impliedly repeal Chapter 823 (public nuisance statute), but ruled that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction requires administrative agencies to address environmental grievances before judici
• Emil J. Bartholet v. Reishauer A.G. (ZÜRICH) & Reishauer Corp. (Elgin)
  953 F.2d 1073· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-15 ·cited 28×
  A claim that an employer promised a pension plan with specific attributes, which was not met by the subsequently created plan, relates to an employee benefit plan and is preempted by ERISA, but the complaint need not explicitly plead ERISA for removal to be proper.
• Creel v. The City OF Atlanta
  399 F.2d 777· 5th Cir.· 1968-08-20 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a substantial federal question, but that the district court should have abstained or stayed proceedings pending resolution of a related state condemnation action.
• Kuhn v. Civil Aeronautics Bd.
  183 F.2d 839· D.C. Cir.· 1950-06-19 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Civil Aeronautics Board's order suspending the pilot's license was supported by substantial evidence and that the pilot received adequate notice of the issues, despite procedural informality.
• Mahone v. Addicks Util. Dist. OF Harris Cnty.
  836 F.2d 921· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-04 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the plaintiff's voting rights and procedural due process claims were properly dismissed, but the equal protection claim requires further consideration. The court also directed dismissal of only federal claims with prejudice.
• NEW England Data Servs., Inc. v. Becher
  829 F.2d 286· 1st Cir.· 1987-09-28 ·cited 27×
  The court held that while Rule 9(b) requires specificity in pleading RICO mail and wire fraud, dismissal should not be automatic if the rule is not satisfied; instead, courts should consider allowing discovery if the facts are likely within the defendant's control and the allegat
• Taylor v. United States (Department of the Army Letterman Army Med. Center)
  821 F.2d 1428· 9th Cir.· 1987-07-16 ·cited 27×
  California Civil Code § 3333.2, limiting noneconomic damages in professional negligence cases, applies to the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act and was not waived by the government's failure to raise it before judgment.
• New Lenox Indus., Inc. v. Fenton
  510 F. Supp. 2d 893· M.D. Fla.· 2007-05-03 ·cited 26×
  The court held that personal jurisdiction over the defendants was proper under Florida's long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause, and that the breach of contract claim was not time-barred on the face of the pleadings.
• Fort Howard Paper Co. v. Standard Havens, Inc.
  901 F.2d 1373· 7th Cir.· 1990-04-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial because affirmative defenses were not properly pleaded, and that the denial of a post-trial amendment and exclusion of parol evidence were also proper.
• Lewis v. Local Union NO. 100 OF THE Laborers' Int'l Union OF N. Am., AFL-CIO
  750 F.2d 1368· 7th Cir.· 1984-12-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a union member can sue their union under Section 301(a) of the LMRA for breach of contract, and that duty of fair representation claims are not preempted by the NLRA. The court also found the claims were not time-barred due to a continuing violation.
• Anderson v. Coughlin
  700 F.2d 37· 2d Cir.· 1983-01-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the complaint was insufficient to survive a 12(b)(6) motion because it lacked specific factual allegations and failed to provide notice of the claim. However, the failure to provide notice that the motion would be treated as a summary judgment was harmless.
• Good Hope Refineries, Inc. v. Brashear
  588 F.2d 846· 1st Cir.· 1978-12-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court's denial of a motion to dismiss and the district court's dismissal of the appeal were interlocutory orders not immediately appealable under the "trivial order" rule.
• Commc'ns Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.
  513 F.2d 1024· 2d Cir.· 1975-03-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Geduldig v. Aiello, which addressed the Equal Protection Clause, did not require the dismissal of a Title VII claim alleging sex discrimination based on disparate treatment of pregnancy-related disabilities.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. WAH Chang Albany Corp. & Local 6163
  499 F.2d 187· 9th Cir.· 1974-06-17 ·cited 26×
  The court held that Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not require the EEOC to specifically plead deferral to a state or local agency as a jurisdictional prerequisite or a condition precedent to relief.
• Vance M. Thompson. Jr. v. Ecological Sci. Corp.
  421 F.2d 467· 8th Cir.· 1970-02-04 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the defendant's purposeful availment of conducting activities within Arkansas, which gave rise to the cause of action, satisfied due process requirements for personal jurisdiction.
• Am. Soc'y OF Travel Agents, Inc. v. Blumenthal
  566 F.2d 145· D.C. Cir.· 1977-09-15 ·cited 25×
  The court held that a taxpayer suffering competitive injury lacks standing to challenge tax rulings applicable to a third party, based on general doctrines of standing rather than specific taxpayer suit principles.
• First Union Nat'l Bank OF Fla., N.A. v. Peoples Nat'l Bank OF Commerce
  644 So. 2d 538· Fla. 3d DCA· 1994-10-05 ·cited 24×
  First Union National Bank and other defendants appealed a trial court order that dismissed defendant Alden Pond from the complaint but retained it as an indispensable party and ordered it to hold sale proceeds in escrow. The appellate court reversed the injunctive escrow provisio
• Russell v. RAY
  780 F.2d 636· 7th Cir.· 1985-12-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under federal securities laws because their claims primarily involved breaches of state fiduciary duties and they had access to state law remedies. However, the court reversed the dismissal of RICO claims, allowing plaintiffs
• Balwant Singh Chahal v. Paine Webber Inc.
  725 F.2d 20· 2d Cir.· 1984-01-04 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the complaint sufficiently pleaded the elements of a witness intimidation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) and that material factual issues precluded summary judgment.
• Dairy Foods Inc. v. Dairy Maid Prods. Coop.
  297 F.2d 805· 7th Cir.· 1961-12-18 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a counterclaim alleging antitrust violations through a patent pool, which forces the defendant into detrimental business choices, sufficiently states a claim for injury to business or property under the Clayton Act, and is not premature.
• Future Tech Int'l, Inc. v. Tae Il Media, Ltd.
  944 F. Supp. 1538· S.D. Fla.· 1996-07-18 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate a probable right to possession of the disputed equipment, thus denying the motion for a prejudgment writ of replevin.
• Cheryll Gray v. Cnty. OF Dane
  854 F.2d 179· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-28 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under section 1983 because her allegations did not establish a municipal policy or custom of discrimination and retaliation, and that her appeal regarding the Title VII dismissal was moot.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc.
  622 F.2d 271· 7th Cir.· 1980-05-13 ·cited 23×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding prejudice, making summary judgment improper, and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing on prejudice.
• In re Sahlen & Assocs.
  773 F. Supp. 342· S.D. Fla.· 1991-07-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that some plaintiffs adequately pleaded actual reliance for their Rule 10b-5 claims, while others failed to plead actual reliance or market efficiency for presumed reliance under the fraud-on-the-market theory. Claims under Rule 10b-5(2) in a primary market context