Notice Pleading

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

• Lieutenant Albert Q. McGEE v. City OF Meridian
  359 F.2d 846· 5th Cir.· 1966-04-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that removal petitions alleging civil rights denials were sufficient to require evidentiary hearings, and the district court should stay proceedings pending Supreme Court decisions.
• Smith v. City OF Drew & Sunflower Cnty.
  360 F.2d 283· 5th Cir.· 1966-04-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that removal petitions were sufficient to allege a basis for removal and that evidentiary hearings are required.
• Pavilion at Healthpark, LLC v. S. M.
  403 So. 3d 517· Fla. 6th DCA· 2025-03-07 ·cited 3×
  Park Royal Hospital appeals a mandatory injunction requiring compliance with Florida's Baker Act and Administrative Code provisions for future unnamed patients. The trial court entered the broad injunction despite S.M.'s petition seeking only habeas corpus relief and correction o
• Fanelli v. HSBC Bank USA
  170 So. 3d 72· Fla. 4th DCA· 2015-06-03 ·cited 3×
  An answer in a mortgage foreclosure case that includes a statement about the defendant's obligation to pay attorney's fees for services rendered is sufficient to support a subsequent motion for attorney's fees, even if it does not contain a separate prayer for fees.
• City of Fort Lauderdale v. Scott
  773 F. Supp. 2d 1355· S.D. Fla.· 2011-02-28 ·cited 3×
  The court granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding some claims inadequately pleaded and others barred by sovereign immunity or procedural rules, but granted leave to amend.
• Gunder's Auto Ctr. v. State Farm Ins.
  617 F. Supp. 2d 1222· M.D. Fla.· 2009-05-22 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a defendant must be a stranger to the business relationship to be liable for tortious interference, and that injunctive relief for defamation is generally improper.
• In re Miva, Inc.
  511 F. Supp. 2d 1242· M.D. Fla.· 2007-07-17 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to plead with particularity that the defendants made false or misleading statements with the required scienter, thus dismissing the securities fraud claims.
• In re Sinaltrainal Litigation
  474 F. Supp. 2d 1273· S.D. Fla.· 2006-09-29 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' allegations were too conclusory, vague, and attenuated to adequately plead a violation of the law of nations, thus the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Claims Act.
• JES Props., Inc. v. USA Equestrian, Inc.
  253 F. Supp. 2d 1273· M.D. Fla.· 2003-03-28 ·cited 3×
  The court granted defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead claims under the Sherman Act and that a request to amend the Clayton Act claim was procedurally improper.
• Jackson v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc.
  2001 WL 1658587· S.D. Fla.· 2001-09-17 ·cited 3×
  The court held that plaintiffs' Section 1981 claim against the Ruden McClosky defendants could proceed based on allegations of disparate treatment, but the claim against BellSouth was dismissed. Federal and state RICO claims were dismissed for failure to sufficiently allege conti
• Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Halifax Ins. Plan, Inc.
  961 F. Supp. 271· M.D. Fla.· 1997-04-15 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint sufficiently alleged compliance with Florida's nonjoinder statute but failed to allege a mandatory condition precedent for an unfair insurance practices claim, granting dismissal without prejudice.
• Sawinski v. Bill Currie Ford, Inc.
  866 F. Supp. 1383· M.D. Fla.· 1994-10-26 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint sufficiently stated claims under the ADA (Count I) and ERISA (Count III) for purposes of a motion to dismiss, but dismissed the retaliation claim (Count II) without prejudice for lack of specificity.
• Cherry v. Crow
  845 F. Supp. 1520· M.D. Fla.· 1994-03-07 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged a third-party beneficiary claim for breach of contract and stated valid claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that allegations of prior inmate deaths were relevant to establishing policy or custom and should not be stricken.
• Plumbers & Steamfitters Local NO. 150 Pension Fund v. Vertex Constr. Co., Inc.
  932 F.2d 1443· 11th Cir.· 1991-06-10 ·cited 3×
  An employer contributing to an ERISA-governed employee benefit trust fund is bound by the trust agreement, even if not incorporated into the collective bargaining agreement.
• In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation
  797 F. Supp. 2d 1312· S.D. Fla.· 2011-07-13 ·cited 2×
  The National Banking Act (NBA) does not preempt state law claims challenging the manner in which banks manipulate overdraft fees, as these claims only incidentally affect the banks' deposit-taking powers and do not significantly interfere with federally granted authority.
• Deuel v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc.
  700 F. Supp. 2d 1306· S.D. Fla.· 2010-04-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff adequately alleged the defendant was a debt collector under the FDCPA, but lacked standing to assert a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b) because she was not the consumer obligated to pay the debt.
• 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 Miva, Inc.
  544 F. Supp. 2d 1310· M.D. Fla.· 2008-02-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that scienter was sufficiently pleaded against defendant Pisaris-Henderson regarding the February 2005 conference call and against defendant Thune regarding the March 2005 Form 10-K, but not against Thune for the conference call or against Agius for either statemen
• Cordova v. Lehman Bros., Inc.
  526 F. Supp. 2d 1305· S.D. Fla.· 2007-12-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' allegations failed to meet the particularity requirements for fraud claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and that the Liberty Trust constituted a one-time investment decision, rendering post-investment statements non-actionable.
• Parrish v. Freightliner, LLC
  471 F. Supp. 2d 1262· M.D. Fla.· 2006-05-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's failure to timely supplement discovery responses and her drastic change in liability theory, without substantial justification or harmlessness to the defendant, warranted striking her expert and granting summary judgment.
• Primavera Invs. v. Liquidmetal Techs., Inc.
  403 F. Supp. 2d 1151· M.D. Fla.· 2005-12-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the amended complaint sufficiently pleads violations of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act, denying the defendants' motion to dismiss.
• Kritzman v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am.
  928 F. Supp. 1165· M.D. Fla.· 1996-06-13 ·cited 2×
  State law claims relating to an employee benefit plan are preempted by ERISA, even if the contract purports to allow state law remedies or the claim arose before the plan's existence.
• Hillsborough Cnty. v. a & E Rd. Oiling Serv.
  853 F. Supp. 1402· M.D. Fla.· 1994-04-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Uniform Comparative Fault Act (UCFA) applies to private party CERCLA settlements, and that CERCLA authorizes recovery of attorney fees as necessary costs of response.
• In re Stanislaw R. Burzynski, M.D.
  989 F.2d 733· 5th Cir.· 1993-04-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff adequately pleaded tortious interference with contract and prospective business relations, but failed to plead abuse of process, business disparagement, claims under the Texas Insurance Code and Illinois Consumer Fraud Statute, and RICO violation
• United States v. Salisbury
  983 F.2d 1369· 6th Cir.· 1993-01-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the indictment was unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendant's conduct and that the jury instructions were confusing and misleading, constituting reversible error.
• Inverworld, Ltd. v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  979 F.2d 868· D.C. Cir.· 1992-11-24 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the Tax Court's decision on the merits.
• Council 31, Am. Fed'n OF State, Cnty. & Mun. Emps., AFL-CIO v. Ward
  978 F.2d 373· 7th Cir.· 1992-10-28 ·cited 2×
  A plaintiff need not allege specific facts to state a cause of action for intentional racial discrimination, and an 'employment practice' actionable under a disparate impact theory can be a single decision by an employer. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment for the d
• Cabrera v. Martin
  973 F.2d 735· 9th Cir.· 1992-08-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that federal defendants did not act under color of state law and thus could not be liable for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and that the state defendant also could not be liable as plaintiffs were not prevailing parties.
• Info. Res., Inc. v. United States
  950 F.2d 1122· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff had constructively exhausted administrative remedies for claims under 26 U.S.C. § 7432 because the administrative remedy was inadequate, and that no administrative remedies were required to be exhausted for claims under 26 U.S.C. § 7433.
• Vulcan Coals, Inc. v. Laurence B. Howard, Jr.
  946 F.2d 1226· 6th Cir.· 1991-10-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) for willful and malicious injury, specifically conversion, and that the lower courts erred in dismissing it.
• Zuckerbraun v. Gen. Dynamics Corp.
  935 F.2d 544· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the wrongful death action because the government's invocation of the state secrets privilege prevented the plaintiff from establishing a prima facie case.
• The Mun. Utils. BD. OF Albertville v. Ala. Power Co.
  925 F.2d 1385· 11th Cir.· 1991-03-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint with prejudice without granting leave to amend, and that the Cities have standing to challenge anticompetitive acts regardless of location.
• Allison v. Ticor Title Ins. Co.
  907 F.2d 645· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-16 ·cited 2×
  An insurer's failure to defend its insureds in a bankruptcy proceeding forfeits its right to rely on policy exclusions, and the insurer is liable for the actual loss, not necessarily the policy limits.
• Carlson v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc.
  693 F. Supp. 1073· S.D. Fla.· 1987-10-22 ·cited 2×
  The court denied motions to dismiss negligence, strict liability, and implied warranty claims, but granted dismissal for civil conspiracy claims due to lack of particularity. Motions to strike punitive damages were largely denied, except for those based on loss of consortium and
• The Bank OF NEW Orleans & Tr. Co. v. Monco Agency, Inc.
  823 F.2d 888· 5th Cir.· 1987-08-11 ·cited 2×
  Litigation against defendants timely sued for the same loss interrupts prescription as to other defendants alleged to be liable in solido, even if claims arise from different sources of law.
• Leenen Ex Rel. Leenen v. Ruttgers Ocean Beach Lodge, Ltd.
  662 F. Supp. 240· S.D. Fla.· 1987-06-24 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding no grounds for dismissal based on receivership, partnership status, statute of limitations, or prior litigation. The court granted the motion to strike certain allegations and claims for interest.
• Vinson v. Ford Motor Co.
  806 F.2d 686· 6th Cir.· 1986-12-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish that he filed an administrative charge concerning his demotion, which is a jurisdictional prerequisite for an ADEA claim.
• United States v. 7.92 Acres OF Land
  769 F.2d 4· 1st Cir.· 1985-07-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Bessay's land did not qualify for the 'improved property' exemption and that the $2,000 compensation awarded was just.
• DiPERRI v. Fed. Aviation Admin.
  671 F.2d 54· 1st Cir.· 1982-02-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that plaintiffs' claims regarding aircraft noise did not state a cause of action under the Federal Aviation Act, but their claim regarding unsafe flight patterns over an oil tank farm did survive a motion to dismiss.
• Aladdin Hotel Corp. v. Nev. Gaming Comm'n
  637 F.2d 582· 9th Cir.· 1980-06-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the preliminary injunction was improperly granted due to overbreadth, the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and should instead be remanded for consideration of appropriate procedural relief.
• Lynott v. Stewart
  505 F.2d 1023· 5th Cir.· 1974-12-30 ·cited 2×
  A district court cannot deny a prisoner's request to proceed in forma pauperis based on the possibility that their financial situation might improve in the future and that statutes of limitations are tolled.
• Jones v. Beto
  459 F.2d 979· 5th Cir.· 1972-05-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying relief without an evidentiary hearing, as the record was insufficiently developed.
• Holloway v. The Dep't OF Hous. & Urban Dev. & Haley Sofge
  418 F.2d 242· 5th Cir.· 1969-11-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a complaint alleging deprivation of due process in public housing tenant regulations, under notice pleading, states a cause of action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, vesting jurisdiction in the federal court.
• In re Sturdevant v. Maley
  415 F.2d 465· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that objections to a bankrupt's discharge are amendable and that the amended objections met the required pleading standards.
• Glover v. Spencer
  452 F. Supp. 586· M.D. Fla.· 2021-10-06 ·cited 1×
  The court denied in part and deemed moot in part the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant's affirmative defenses.
• SOL v. City of Miami
  776 F. Supp. 2d 1375· S.D. Fla.· 2011-04-11 ·cited 1×
  The court held that indemnity claims are barred because the claimants were not vicariously liable or non-negligent tortfeasors under maritime law, but contribution claims may proceed. Qualified immunity bars claims against the officer.
• St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. Lago Canyon, Inc.
  666 F. Supp. 2d 1341· S.D. Fla.· 2009-09-21 ·cited 1×
  The court vacated the award of costs to the insurer because the appellate court's decision on the coverage issue rendered the insurer no longer the prevailing party. The court granted prejudgment interest to the insured and denied the insured's motion to amend its affirmative def
• Taplett v. TRG Oasis (Tower Two), Ltd., L.P.
  755 F. Supp. 2d 1197· M.D. Fla.· 2009-04-30 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a claim under ILSFDA § 1703(a)(2) requires a showing of reliance, which was rebutted by the purchase agreement's merger clause, and that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for a violation of § 1703(d)(1).
• Lamb v. Charlotte Cnty.
  429 F. Supp. 2d 1302· M.D. Fla.· 2006-04-21 ·cited 1×
  The court held that Plaintiff Lamb lacks standing to sue because he failed to demonstrate a concrete and specific intent to return to the defendant's facilities, and therefore, Access Now, Inc. also lacks standing.
• Belknap v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.
  389 F. Supp. 2d 1320· M.D. Fla.· 2005-06-09 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the insurance policy was governed by ERISA because the employer's actions indicated endorsement, thus preempting state law claims.