Notice Pleading

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

• Beaulieu v. United States
  865 F.2d 1351· 1st Cir.· 1989-01-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a claim under the Privacy Act because it did not allege that the disclosed information came from a 'system of records' as defined by the Act.
• O'Quinn v. Manuel
  773 F.2d 605· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim, as the plaintiff's allegations, if true, could establish a violation of his constitutional rights. However, the dismissal for failure to state a claim is affirmed, but the case
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Homemaker Shops, Inc.
  724 F.2d 535· 6th Cir.· 1984-01-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Board cannot find unlawful domination of a labor committee when the complaint and General Counsel at the hearing only alleged unlawful assistance, as this deprives the employer of proper notice and due process. Furthermore, the Board's findings of dominati
• Sinclair v. Kleindienst
  711 F.2d 291· D.C. Cir.· 1983-06-24 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the claims for failure to state a claim and in denying the motions to transfer.
• Mountain View Pharmacy v. Abbott Labs.
  630 F.2d 1383· 10th Cir.· 1980-10-02 ·cited 22×
  The court held that conditioning leave to amend on a factual certificate was an abuse of discretion, but affirmed dismissal of most claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Rule 8(a)(2).
• Gaffney v. Silk
  488 F.2d 1248· 1st Cir.· 1973-12-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint, as the amended complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Francis O. DAY Co., Inc. v. Shapiro
  267 F.2d 669· D.C. Cir.· 1959-05-21 ·cited 22×
  A complaint should not be dismissed if the plaintiff can prove any set of facts entitling them to relief, even without explicit allegations of fraud, to prevent injustice.
• Allegiance Healthcare Corp. v. Coleman
  232 F. Supp. 2d 1329· S.D. Fla.· 2002-11-14 ·cited 21×
  The court held that a successor entity can enforce non-compete agreements acquired through stock purchases or mergers, and that the Uniform Trade Secrets Act preempts common law unfair competition claims based on the same allegations.
• Ermel I. Coon v. Ga. Pac. Corp.
  829 F.2d 1563· 11th Cir.· 1987-10-21 ·cited 21×
  The court held that a plaintiff cannot litigate claims not pleaded in the complaint, even if mentioned in a pretrial stipulation or related to an EEOC charge, and that class certification requires meeting specific Rule 23(a) criteria.
• Walker v. U-Haul Co. OF Miss.
  734 F.2d 1068· 5th Cir.· 1984-06-25 ·cited 21×
  Summary judgment is affirmed on antitrust and franchise statute claims due to lack of evidence of anticompetitive effect or proper notice, but reversed on fraud and fiduciary duty claims because reliance damages are recoverable for fraudulent oral promises despite the Statute of
• City of Gainesville v. Fla. Power & Light Co.
  488 F. Supp. 1258· S.D. Fla.· 1980-04-18 ·cited 21×
  The court held that FPL's counterclaim failed to meet modern pleading requirements and was dismissed without prejudice. Claims under the Federal Power Act and Natural Gas Act were dismissed for lack of an implied private right of action.
• Lucien M. Aubut v. State OF Me.
  431 F.2d 688· 1st Cir.· 1970-09-23 ·cited 21×
  The court held that a habeas corpus petition must allege specific facts demonstrating a constitutional violation, not mere generalizations, and denied the request for appointed counsel to search for such errors.
• Ron's Quality Towing, Inc. v. Se. Bank OF Fla. & Floyd Pridgeon
  765 So. 2d 134· Fla. 1st DCA· 2000-06-22 ·cited 20×
  Ron's Quality Towing appeals summary judgment dismissing its claims against Southeastern Bank and Floyd Pridgeon on statute of limitations grounds. The First District Court of Appeal holds that amended complaints filed after Quality's reinstatement as a corporation relate back to
• Weaver v. The Leon Cnty. Classroom Teachers Ass'n
  680 So. 2d 478· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-03-27 ·cited 20×
  James Weaver appealed the dismissal with prejudice of his second amended complaint alleging that the Leon County Classroom Teachers Association breached its duty of fair representation by failing to process his Step II grievance, thereby acquiescing in racial discrimination by hi
• Revene v. Charles Cnty. Comm'rs
  882 F.2d 870· 4th Cir.· 1989-08-14 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the dismissal of the § 1983 claim and state law tort claim against the deputy sheriff in his individual capacity was error, but dismissal of claims against the Sheriff, Office of Sheriff, and County Commissioners was proper.
• Reverend Arcadio Natal v. The Christian & Missionary Alliance
  878 F.2d 1575· 1st Cir.· 1989-07-14 ·cited 20×
  Civil courts cannot adjudicate disputes concerning a religious organization's internal governance, including the selection and retention of its clergy, as such matters are protected by the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause.
• United States v. $55
  728 F.2d 192· 3d Cir.· 1984-02-21 ·cited 20×
  The district court abused its discretion in refusing to vacate a default judgment because the defendant satisfied the criteria for setting aside a default, including demonstrating a meritorious defense and lack of culpable conduct.
• Sims v. BMW of N. Am. LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-04 ·cited 19×
  The court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motions in limine, excluding certain evidence and arguments while allowing others, based on rules of evidence and procedural fairness.
• BAC Home Loans Servicing, Inc. v. de Headley
  130 So. 3d 703· Fla. 3d DCA· 2013-11-20 ·cited 19×
  In this foreclosure case, the trial court granted a default judgment awarding equitable relief (declaring the mortgage null and void and quieting title) based on the defendants' misrepresentations in their motion for final judgment. The appellate court reversed, holding that a de
• Florida Evergreen Foliage v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.
  336 F. Supp. 2d 1239· S.D. Fla.· 2004-07-26 ·cited 18×
  The court denied motions to amend, granted summary judgment for DuPont on fraud claims, denied summary judgment for DuPont on breach of settlement claims, and granted motions to dismiss, closing the cases.
• Scarfato v. Nat'l Cash Register Corp.
  830 F. Supp. 1441· M.D. Fla.· 1993-09-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a complaint alleging a product was unreasonably dangerous and caused damages is sufficient to state a claim for negligence under federal pleading rules, but a loss of consortium claim requires a valid marriage at the time of injury.
• Hernandez v. Denton
  861 F.2d 1421· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-23 ·cited 18×
  A district court may dismiss a pro se in forma pauperis complaint as frivolous only if it lacks any "arguable substance in law or fact," and cannot dismiss based on credibility determinations of the allegations.
• Munz v. Parr
  758 F.2d 1254· 8th Cir.· 1985-03-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the excessive force claim against an unnamed defendant and other claims without allowing the pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint.
• Cajigas v. Banco de Ponce
  741 F.2d 464· 1st Cir.· 1984-08-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim was timely with respect to the alleged discriminatory refusal to promote her to an available executive position within the limitations period, reversing the grant of summary judgment.
• Universe Tankships, Inc. v. United States
  528 F.2d 73· 3d Cir.· 1975-12-29 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the grounding of the vessel was caused by the government's inaccurate channel depth statement.
• Miller v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. (hereafter AT&T)
  507 F.2d 759· 3d Cir.· 1974-11-04 ·cited 18×
  A complaint alleging directors failed to collect a debt owed by a political committee, which constituted an illegal corporate contribution in violation of federal law, states a claim for breach of fiduciary duty sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.
• Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins.
  527 F. Supp. 2d 1355· M.D. Fla.· 2007-10-05 ·cited 17×
  The court dismissed the federal and Florida RICO claims for failure to plead with sufficient specificity and abated the Florida Insurance Code claims as premature, but denied motions to dismiss breach of contract claims.
• Leavitt v. Cole
  291 F. Supp. 2d 1338· M.D. Fla.· 2003-11-17 ·cited 17×
  The court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) governs pleading specificity for claims of slander per quod and injurious falsehood, not heightened pleading requirements previously interpreted under Rule 9(g).
• Colonial Penn Ins. v. Value Rent-A-Car Inc.
  814 F. Supp. 1084· S.D. Fla.· 1992-12-08 ·cited 17×
  The court denied in part and granted in part motions to dismiss the second amended complaint, finding federal and Florida RICO claims, breach of contract, and civil theft claims sufficiently pleaded, but granted dismissal for certain fraud claims and conspiracy allegations.
• State of Wis. Inv. Bd. v. Plantation Square Assocs., Ltd.
  761 F. Supp. 1569· S.D. Fla.· 1991-04-06 ·cited 17×
  Florida Statute § 768.72's pleading requirements conflict with Federal Rule 8 and are therefore inapplicable in federal diversity actions; its discovery provision does not conflict with Federal Rule 26.
• Arky v. Bowmar Instrument Corp.
  527 So. 2d 211· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-12-08 ·cited 17×
  A law firm appealed a jury verdict awarding damages to a client in a legal malpractice counterclaim, arguing the verdict was based on a theory of negligence never properly pleaded. The court reversed and remanded, holding that although the counterclaim failed to adequately plead
• Prepmore Apparel, Inc. v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  431 F.2d 1004· 5th Cir.· 1970-08-03 ·cited 17×
• Banco Continental v. Curtiss Nat'l Bank OF Miami Springs
  406 F.2d 510· 5th Cir.· 1969-01-09 ·cited 17×
• Moore v. Miami-Dade Cnty.
  502 F. Supp. 2d 1224· S.D. Fla.· 2007-07-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim against the county under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that the defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity due to insufficient factual allegations.
• Rios v. McDERMOTT
  613 So. 2d 544· Fla. 3d DCA· 1993-02-02 ·cited 16×
  Property owners sued a law firm for negligence in clearing title to their property, claiming damages from a lost sale opportunity and interest payments. The trial court dismissed their fifth amended complaint for failing to state a cause of action, and the appellate court affirme
• McGEORGE v. Cont'l Airlines, Inc.
  871 F.2d 952· 10th Cir.· 1989-04-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal from the District of Columbia court's orders and affirmed the Oklahoma court's dismissal of the battery claim and denial of the motion to amend.
• Lombard's, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., Inc.
  753 F.2d 974· 11th Cir.· 1985-02-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the amended complaint failed to state a claim for antitrust violation due to conclusory allegations and lack of specific facts, and that the denial of discovery motions was not an abuse of discretion.
• In re Dill v. Dill
  731 F.2d 629· 9th Cir.· 1984-04-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that disputed contract claims are not contingent for the purpose of an involuntary bankruptcy petition and that the case must be remanded to determine if these claims should be included in the calculation of whether the debtor was generally not paying debts as they
• Pinto Trucking Serv., Inc. v. Motor Dispatch, Inc.
  649 F.2d 530· 7th Cir.· 1981-05-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that applying collateral estoppel to bind defendants to issues decided against other defendants in a prior trial violated due process because the defendants did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate those issues.
• The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., Inc. v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen OF N. Am., Local Union NO. 88, AFL-CIO
  410 F.2d 650· 8th Cir.· 1969-05-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the complaint's allegations were sufficient to state a claim for relief under the Sherman Act and the Labor Management Relations Act.
• United States v. Bruce
  353 F.2d 474· 5th Cir.· 1965-11-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged that defendants' actions, though potentially legal in another context, constituted illegal intimidation and coercion for the purpose of interfering with Negro citizens' right to vote.
• Jackson Marine Corp. v. Harvey Barge Repair, Inc.
  794 F.2d 989· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-18 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorney's fees as sanctions, as the clerk's minute entry did not constitute a grant of sanctions and the judge explicitly denied them.
• Clark v. Nat'l Travelers Life Ins. Co.
  518 F.2d 1167· 6th Cir.· 1975-07-01 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the complaint did not sufficiently allege a claim for statutory penalties or attorney's fees to meet the $10,000 jurisdictional amount for diversity jurisdiction, despite the ad damnum clause.
• Otto Candies, LLC v. Citigroup Inc.
  137 F.4th 1158· 11th Cir.· 2025-05-08 ·cited 14×
  Otto Candies, LLC and other plaintiffs sued Citigroup for orchestrating a fraudulent scheme involving inflated cash advances to Mexican oil services company Oceanografía that caused over $1 billion in losses to investors. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's dismiss
• Leatherman v. Tarrant Cnty. Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit
  954 F.2d 1054· 5th Cir.· 1992-02-28 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the section 1983 claims against the municipalities because the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the circuit's heightened pleading requirement for allegations of inadequate training.
• Consol. Rail Corp. v. The United States & the Interstate Commerce Comm'n
  812 F.2d 1444· 3d Cir.· 1987-02-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Commission's formulation of the Management Efficiency constraint was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law because it allowed carriers to pass on the costs of inefficiencies to consumers.
• Jennings v. Jennings
  353 So. 2d 921· Fla. 4th DCA· 1978-01-04 ·cited 14×
  A petition requesting only a reduction in alimony does not provide sufficient notice to support a complete cancellation of alimony payments; cancellation must be separately pleaded.
• Alum-A-Fold Shutter Corp. v. Folding Shutter Corp.
  441 F.2d 556· 5th Cir.· 1971-05-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Lanham Act § 43(a) creates a federal cause of action for false representations in commerce, and the complaint sufficiently alleged such a claim under notice pleading standards.
• Addie Sue Brown v. City OF Meridian
  356 F.2d 602· 5th Cir.· 1966-01-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that lodging removal petitions with the district court clerk before trial was timely, and the petitions sufficiently stated a removable case under federal civil rights statutes.
• Smith v. Osceola Cnty.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-27 ·cited 13×
  The court held that affirmative defenses, even if mislabeled as such, should not be stricken if they provide fair notice and are not legally insufficient on their face, and that heightened pleading standards do not apply to affirmative defenses.