Notice Pleading

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

• Commonwealth OF Pa. v. Pepsico, Inc.
  836 F.2d 173· 3d Cir.· 1988-01-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Soft Drink Interbrand Competition Act of 1980 applies to territorial restraints in soft drink distribution, even when alleged to involve horizontal conspiracy, unless the plaintiff specifically pleads and proves the absence of substantial and effective int
• United States v. Miller
  774 F.2d 883· 8th Cir.· 1985-10-03 ·cited 8×
  An indictment for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1955 is insufficient if it fails to specify the particular state statute allegedly violated, as this is a substantive element of the offense.
• Hess v. The United States
  537 F.2d 457· Ct. Cl.· 1976-07-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant should be allowed to amend its answer to plead estoppel defenses and that plaintiffs are bound to use estate tax values for gain computation under a duty of consistency.
• Woolsey v. Beto
  450 F.2d 321· 5th Cir.· 1971-10-28 ·cited 8×
• Westinghouse Elec. Supply Co. v. Wesley Constr. Co.
  414 F.2d 1280· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a dismissal for failure to state a claim cannot be sustained when the court relies on matters outside the pleadings without treating the motion as one for summary judgment and without the relevant documents being part of the record.
• Adolphus Keaton v. The Atchison
  321 F.2d 317· 7th Cir.· 1963-07-18 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge would reverse and remand for a new trial due to improper and prejudicial arguments by plaintiff's counsel.
• Mrs. Fay M. Hoshman v. Esso Standard OIL Co.
  263 F.2d 499· 5th Cir.· 1959-01-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the widow's exclusive remedy for her husband's death in an industrial accident was under the Louisiana Workmen's Compensation Act, as the alleged negligence constituted a hazard incident to refinery employment.
• Mistretta v. Volusia Cnty. Dep't of Corr.
  61 F. Supp. 2d 1255· M.D. Fla.· 1999-02-01 ·cited 7×
  The court held that verbal reprimands and threats do not constitute adverse employment actions under the FMLA, and that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for retaliation or ADA discrimination due to lack of employer awareness of his limitations.
• Aquatherm Indus., Inc. v. Fla. Power & Light Co.
  971 F. Supp. 1419· M.D. Fla.· 1997-07-09 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a claim under federal antitrust laws because it lacked specific factual allegations regarding the relevant market and alleged conspiracies.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Haddad
  778 F. Supp. 1559· S.D. Fla.· 1991-07-26 ·cited 7×
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to dismiss Counts III, IV, and V with prejudice, but denied dismissal of Counts I and II, finding they stated valid claims.
• Boczar v. Manatee Hosps. & Health Sys., Inc.
  731 F. Supp. 1042· M.D. Fla.· 1990-02-21 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Sherman Antitrust Act, RICO, and Title VII, and dismissed pendant state law claims for lack of jurisdiction.
• Morales v. Fifth Third Bank
  275 So. 3d 197· Fla. 4th DCA· 2019-07-03 ·cited 6×
  When a lender bases its recovery on a loan modification, it must plead the modification and attach it to the complaint. Failure to do so, when the borrower objects, requires reversal and involuntary dismissal because the borrower is denied adequate notice of the claim and cannot
• Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Weaver Aggregate Transp., Inc.
  773 F. Supp. 2d 1317· M.D. Fla.· 2011-03-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Beacon's motion to dismiss should be denied as American Home sufficiently pleaded claims for fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment, and breach of third-party beneficiary contract.
• United States Ex Rel. Butler v. Magellan Health Servs., Inc.
  74 F. Supp. 2d 1201· M.D. Fla.· 1999-11-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's qui tam action was barred by the False Claims Act's public disclosure provision because the allegations were publicly disclosed in civil litigation and the news media, and the plaintiff was not an original source of the information.
• Dep't OF Child. & Families v. Morman
  715 So. 2d 1076· Fla. 1st DCA· 1998-08-07 ·cited 6×
  An administrative complaint alleging training violations at a day care facility provided sufficient notice of the charges when it specified the nature and dates of violations, the occasions of discovery, and the pertinent rules, even without naming specific employees.
• Sparks v. Jay's A.C. & Refrigeration, Inc.
  971 F. Supp. 1433· M.D. Fla.· 1997-07-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Byrd v. Richardson-Greenshields Sec. does not modify the prima facie elements of respondeat superior for intentional torts arising out of sexual harassment, and Florida law concerning the 'scope of employment' still appl
• McCutcheon v. Kidder
  938 F. Supp. 820· S.D. Fla.· 1996-06-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the economic loss rule bars common law claims for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud when the losses stem from a contractual relationship, but securities fraud claims may proceed if pleaded with particularity.
• Nussbaum v. Mortg. Serv. Am. Co.
  913 F. Supp. 1548· S.D. Fla.· 1995-12-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Florida's intangible tax is not a finance charge under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) because it is a fee for perfecting a security interest and Florida law authorizes lenders to pass it on to consumers. The court also found that recent Federal Reserve Board
• Rumford Pharmacy, Inc. v. City OF E. Providence
  970 F.2d 996· 1st Cir.· 1992-07-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for procedural due process violations because it did not allege the unavailability of adequate state remedies, and lacked standing for injunctive relief as its injury was not redressable.
• In re Excello Press
  967 F.2d 1109· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that imposing sanctions under Rule 9011 for an attorney's failure to investigate an affirmative defense, when there was a split in authority on the issue and relevant information was not readily available, constituted an abuse of discretion.
• Perkins v. Silverstein
  939 F.2d 463· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the plaintiffs' claims because the complaint, even as amended, failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and the denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion.
• Gould, Inc. v. The United States
  935 F.2d 1271· Fed. Cir.· 1991-06-07 ·cited 6×
  The settlement agreement permitted Gould to pursue a damages action on the grounds reserved in its claim, and the Claims Court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim.
• Myron ASH v. Wallenmeyer
  879 F.2d 272· 7th Cir.· 1989-07-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff was improperly denied the opportunity to pursue damages for underbilling, and dismissal was too harsh a sanction for procedural missteps.
• United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. J.D. Johnson Co., Inc.
  438 So. 2d 917· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-09-29 ·cited 6×
  United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company appeals a summary judgment granting coverage under an all-risk casualty insurance policy for equipment that disappeared from J.D. Johnson Company's warehouse. The court reversed, holding that material facts remain in dispute concerning wh
• Women IN City Gov't United v. The City OF NEW York
  563 F.2d 537· 2d Cir.· 1977-09-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a plaintiff must have a factual basis to support a claim of discriminatory impact under Title VII, and cannot use a complaint to search for such a basis.
• Girard Tr. Bank v. Martin
  557 F.2d 386· 3d Cir.· 1977-06-22 ·cited 6×
  A petition to open or vacate a judgment entered in federal court is procedurally governed by Rule 60(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., not liberal notice pleading standards, and requires allegations of fraud to be stated with particularity.
• Carboline Co. v. The Home Indem. Co.
  522 F.2d 363· 7th Cir.· 1975-08-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that summary judgment for the insurer was improper regarding Exclusion K because the allegations in the underlying action did not definitively exclude the possibility of active malfunction, and thus the insurer may have breached its duty to defend. However, summary
• The A. S. Abell Co. v. Chell
  412 F.2d 712· 4th Cir.· 1969-06-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district judge erred in dismissing Abell's claims for declaratory relief regarding both pre- and post-March 29, 1968, conduct, as an actual controversy existed and the claims were not purely hypothetical.
• United States v. Hardy
  368 F.2d 191· 10th Cir.· 1966-11-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court erred in allowing a damages claim not properly pleaded, depriving the government of notice and opportunity to defend.
• Fla. Dep't OF Transp. & Jim Boxold v. Tropical Trailer Leasing, LLC
  229 So. 3d 1251· Fla. 1st DCA· 2017-11-06 ·cited 5×
  Florida Department of Transportation appeals a trial court's order certifying two subclasses in a class action brought by Tropical Trailer Leasing over toll assessment methods. The court reverses, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by certifying classes broader th
• TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. GSM Grp., Inc.
  555 F. Supp. 2d 1331· S.D. Fla.· 2008-05-15 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the complaint sufficiently stated claims to withstand a motion to dismiss, denying the defendants' motion.
• Travelers Indem. Co. v. Royal Oak Enters., Inc.
  429 F. Supp. 2d 1265· M.D. Fla.· 2004-03-10 ·cited 5×
  The court held that claims for negligent or bad faith refusal to settle are dismissed because the underlying negligence claim was barred by workers' compensation immunity. Tort claims are dismissed under the economic loss rule.
• Tutor Time Child Care Sys., Inc. v. Franks Inv. Grp., Inc.
  966 F. Supp. 1188· S.D. Fla.· 1997-06-04 ·cited 5×
  The court held that Florida Statute § 768.72's pleading requirements for punitive damages conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and therefore do not apply in federal diversity actions.
• Teel v. United Techs. Pratt & Whitney
  953 F. Supp. 1534· S.D. Fla.· 1997-02-17 ·cited 5×
  Florida Statute § 768.72, which requires a reasonable evidentiary basis before punitive damages can be pleaded, is substantive law and must be applied in federal court to state law claims to prevent forum shopping and inequitable administration of the law.
• Fla. Dept. Ins. v. Debenture Guar
  921 F. Supp. 750· M.D. Fla.· 1996-04-08 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to plead fraud with particularity and for failure to state a claim was without merit, denying the motion.
• Smith v. Meese
  821 F.2d 1484· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-30 ·cited 5×
  The plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged concrete injury to themselves to satisfy the constitutional requirement of standing, thus the district court lacks jurisdiction.
• Robert Ortiz and wife v. Orchid Springs Dev. Corp.
  504 So. 2d 510· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-03-25 ·cited 5×
  The court held that Count I sufficiently alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, but Count II did not. The dismissal of Count I was reversed, while the dismissal of Count II was affirmed.
• Cooper, Jr. v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  2019 WL 5304078· M.D. Fla.· 2020-07-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim against the FDOC, Corizon, the officers, and Warden Freeman due to insufficient factual allegations and lack of specificity.
• In re Pegasus Wireless Corp. Sec. Litig.
  657 F. Supp. 2d 1320· S.D. Fla.· 2009-09-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to plead with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that defendant Peraticos acted with scienter, and thus granted his motion to dismiss.
• Onofrieti v. Metro. Life Ins.
  320 F. Supp. 2d 1250· M.D. Fla.· 2004-03-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the administrator's decision to terminate long-term disability benefits was not wrong, and granted summary judgment for the defendant. The court also denied the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Physicians Guardian Unit Inv. Tr. Ex Rel. Physicians Guardian, Inc.
  72 F. Supp. 2d 1342· M.D. Fla.· 1999-10-29 ·cited 4×
  The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged fraud with particularity under Rule 9(b) and satisfied the notice pleading requirements of Rule 8.
• Robinson v. Power Pizza, Inc.
  993 F. Supp. 1462· M.D. Fla.· 1998-02-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the defendant's refusal to deliver food to the predominantly African-American community of American Beach, while delivering to the predominantly Caucasian community of Amelia Island Planta
• Marshall Cnty. Health Care Auth. v. Shalala
  988 F.2d 1221· D.C. Cir.· 1993-03-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a district court can properly consider the merits of an agency action on a motion to dismiss when the issue is purely legal, and that the Secretary's decision not to grant exceptions to Medicare reimbursement classifications is reviewable under the APA.
• Brownlee v. Conine
  957 F.2d 353· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a district judge cannot dismiss a prisoner's civil rights complaint as frivolous solely because it is conclusory or stale, without proper analysis of the claims.
• Cannon v. The Kroger Co.
  837 F.2d 660· 4th Cir.· 1988-01-29 ·cited 4×
  The court should not have dismissed the plaintiff's hybrid action for failing to file a federal-style complaint within six months of accrual. The action was timely commenced in state court under North Carolina procedural rules, which were applicable prior to removal. Federal Rule
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Quality C.A.T.V., Inc.
  824 F.2d 542· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-29 ·cited 4×
  The Board violated the company's due process rights by finding a violation based on a claim (protesting uncomfortable working conditions) that was not alleged in the complaint, not litigated at the hearing, and first raised in the General Counsel's brief to the Board.
• Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  814 F.2d 1530· 11th Cir.· 1987-04-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the National Labor Relations Board's findings that Rockwell International Corporation violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by threatening, warning, and discharging an employee due to her union involvement
• The Minn. Chippewa Tribe (No. 19) RED Lake Band v. The United States
  768 F.2d 338· Fed. Cir.· 1985-08-02 ·cited 4×
  The United States cannot be compelled to furnish separate accountings for property and expenditures on a band-by-band basis for most Chippewa bands, as these claims were not timely pleaded and are barred by the statute of limitations.
• Hardy v. The Univ. Interscholastic League
  759 F.2d 1233· 5th Cir.· 1985-05-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the federal constitutional claims were properly dismissed, the state-law claims should have been remanded to state court rather than dismissed with prejudice.
• In re Dahlberg v. SAM T. Davis Farms, Inc.
  681 F.2d 546· 8th Cir.· 1982-06-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the complaint sufficiently stated a claim under section 70 of the Bankruptcy Act, and that the district court erred in not considering it, but affirmed the dismissal of the section 60 claim as barred by the statute of limitations.