Notice Pleading

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

• Craig v. Park Fin. of Broward Cnty., Inc.
  390 F. Supp. 2d 1150· M.D. Fla.· 2005-04-26 ·cited 1×
  The court held that Park Finance, as a creditor collecting its own debt, is not a 'debt collector' under the FDCPA, and dismissed claims against it, while staying claims against the attorney due to bankruptcy.
• 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.
• DirecTV, Inc. v. Cardona
  275 F. Supp. 2d 1357· M.D. Fla.· 2003-07-08 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a private right of action under 18 U.S.C. § 2520(a) does not extend to violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2512(1)(b) concerning the manufacture, assembly, possession, or sale of devices primarily useful for surreptitious interception.
• Andrx Pharms., Inc. v. Biovail Corp.
  175 F. Supp. 2d 1362· S.D. Fla.· 2001-09-19 ·cited 1×
  The court dismissed claims against the Federal Defendants and state law claims against Biovail, finding them preempted or lacking a private right of action under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Antitrust claims were allowed to proceed. Claims for infringement/invalidity were dismissed as p
• Hornfeld v. City of N. Miami Beach
  29 F. Supp. 2d 1357· S.D. Fla.· 1998-11-09 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) does not preclude a plaintiff from bringing a concurrent claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Hodges v. Gellerstedt
  833 F. Supp. 898· M.D. Fla.· 1993-10-14 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently alleged claims for quid pro quo and hostile work environment sexual harassment under Title VII, and therefore denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and motion for a more definite statement.
• Meldeau Int'l Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
  750 F. Supp. 1574· S.D. Fla.· 1990-11-14 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the magistrate's report and recommendation denying the defendant's motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration and the motion to dismiss the slander claim should be adopted and affirmed.
• Nelson v. Sch. Bd. of Palm Beach Cnty.
  738 F. Supp. 478· S.D. Fla.· 1990-05-17 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded claims under Title VII, ADEA, and § 1981, but not under the Fourteenth Amendment directly or for due process violations.
• Whitehead v. Rizon E. Ass'n
  425 So. 2d 627· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-01-19 ·cited 1×
  Developers who built a condominium sued third-party defendants (an HVAC contractor and an engineer) for defective construction, particularly a missing exhaust duct venting system in bathrooms. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, but the appellate court re
• Ursula Irene Rowell v. Hardy Hodges
  434 F.2d 926· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-09 ·cited 1×
  An insurer's duty to defend is not triggered by a complaint's allegations if the insurer possesses undisputed facts demonstrating no coverage for the casualty.
• Waterman Mem'l Hosp. Ass'n, Inc. v. Rigdon
  32 Fla. Supp. 154· Lake Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1969-07-10 ·cited 1×
  In this procedural decision, the trial court rejected the hospital's motion to dismiss a patient's counterclaim for negligence, holding that the counterclaim adequately pleaded the elements of negligence under Florida's modern notice pleading rules, which do not require detailed
• Phillips v. Murchison
  383 F.2d 370· 2d Cir.· 1967-08-23 ·cited 1×
  The court held that counts alleging abuse of process and libel, based on the misuse of legal process and direct publication of a complaint to individuals, were properly pleaded under recent New York law, even without allegations of interference with person or property.
• Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. OF Am. v. Blackbaud, Inc.
  Del.· 2026-02-13
  Insurance companies sued Blackbaud as subrogees/assignees of clients harmed by a ransomware attack, seeking to recover investigation and remediation expenses they paid out under cyber insurance policies. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed dismissal of the breach of contract clai
• Balentine v. Houtz
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2026-01-30
  In this negligence case arising from a motor vehicle accident, the court denied defendants' motion in limine to preclude plaintiff from introducing special damages at trial. The court held that although plaintiff failed to timely respond to a Rule 9(g) demand for itemization of s
• Gen. Zantac Litig. In re: Zantac (Ranitidine Litig. C.A. No.: N22C-09-101 ZAN
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2026-01-29
  The Delaware Superior Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss 277 Zantac cases on statute of limitations grounds, holding that Delaware's two-year limitations period applies under the borrowing statute and that plaintiffs had inquiry notice of their claims as of the FDA's Apr
• Hayworth Tanglewood IB, LLC v. Hayworth Tanglewood
  Del. Ch.· 2026-01-09
  In a Delaware statutory trust dispute, the Court of Chancery denied defendants' motion to dismiss or stay, finding that the McWane doctrine does not require dismissal based on a related but distinct New York action, and that the plaintiff has adequately pleaded viable claims for
• Institutional Processing Servs. LLC v. Realtime Solutions, LLC
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2026-01-06
  This Delaware Superior Court decision addresses competing motions in a dispute between Institutional Processing Services, a rebate processor, and Cool School Cafe, a school loyalty program provider. The court denied Institutional Processing's motion for judgment on the pleadings
• Charmaine Floyd v. Mr. Thermond
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-12-12
  The court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim, and recommended the plaintiff be designated a vexatious litigant.
• Cushing v. Holowaty
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2025-12-11
  The court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment claim, finding the plaintiff sought monetary damages. However, the court granted the motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment count as duplicative of the fraud claim. Th
• Moran v. Zoomcar India Private Ltd.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2025-11-20
  Gregory Moran, founder of Zoomcar and its former CEO, sued to recover promised compensation and equity after his employment was terminated, alleging that controlling investors engaged in self-serving conduct and retaliated against his criticism by manufacturing pretextual grounds
• Irish Horton v. Beacon Woods E. Master Ass'n, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-05
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead claims for race-based discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, as the allegations primarily focused on disability discrimination.
• Cece v. St. John's River Water Mgmt. Dist.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-30
  The Court holds that the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is a shotgun pleading violating Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is therefore stricken.
• Doller v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-10
  The court held that some statements regarding EV demand were actionable securities fraud, while others were dismissed as immaterial puffery or lacking sufficient falsity. The court also found sufficient allegations of scienter for the surviving claims.
• RSN Assocs. LLC v. Ajjarapu
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-16
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to meet the heightened pleading requirements for fraud claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA).
• Behr v. Attorney General of Florida
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-09-05
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint without prejudice.
• John v. Harkan
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-13
  The court held that the pro se plaintiff's complaint was a "shotgun pleading" due to vague allegations and failure to specify claims against each defendant, and thus it must be stricken.
• Richards v. The Fresh Mkt., Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-06-23
  The court held that while the plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to state a claim for negligence, the amended complaint was dismissed as a shotgun pleading because it commingled distinct causes of action into a single count.
• Goal Acquisitions Corp.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2025-06-17
  The Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint for legal malpractice. The Court found that the plaintiff had adequately pleaded that the Court of Chancery had subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying action, that Delaware had personal
• Kinard v. The Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-17
  The court held that the plaintiff's grievances, which focused solely on inadequate medical treatment, did not provide sufficient notice of his claims for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act, and therefore, he failed to exhaus
• Porter v. Fla. Boy Honey, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-05
  The court held that a plaintiff must properly serve an amended complaint under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, even if defendants are in default, if the amended complaint asserts new claims or materially alters existing ones, especially when the original complaint
• Arch Ins. Co. v. A3 Dev., LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-05-27
  Arch Insurance Company, as surety on performance bonds for a Miami Beach construction project, sued A3 Development and related entities for breach of contract after they depleted funds, made wrongful demands under the bonds, and performed corrective work without notice to Arch. T
• Hopps v. City of Tampa
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-28
  The court held that the amended complaint was a shotgun pleading and must be dismissed, but granted the plaintiff leave to amend.
• Rashada v. Hathcock
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-04-08
  Jaden Rashada sued University of Florida football coach William Napier, NIL director Marcus Castro-Walker, booster Hugh Hathcock, and Velocity Automotive Solutions for fraudulently inducing him to commit to the university with promises of a $13.85 million name, image, and likenes
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Start Connecting LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-25
  The court held that the FTC's complaint provided sufficient notice to defendants, even when alleging a common enterprise, and denied the motions for a more definite statement.
• P'rs Insight, LLC v. Gill
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-18
  The court held that subpoenas to former employers/staffing agencies were overly broad and irrelevant, but subpoenas to recruiters for a competing business were not. The court also found the subpoenas were not untimely due to suspended deadlines.
• Tobin v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-11-05
  The court held that the plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint should be dismissed for failing to state a claim, violating pleading rules, and failing to follow court orders.
• Merryman v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-30
  The court held that the pro se plaintiffs' amended complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and ordered them to file a second amended complaint.
• Khan v. Palomera
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-10-18
  The court held that the plaintiff's federal securities law claims and state law claims for civil theft, conversion, and breach of contract were dismissed for failure to state a claim and failure to meet heightened pleading standards.
• THE Spring League, LLC v. Frost Brown Todd LLP
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2024-10-08
  The Court granted the defendant law firm's motion to dismiss a legal malpractice claim, finding that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead the elements of negligence and causation. Specifically, the plaintiff did not allege the applicable standard of care for the legal service
• Wellgistics, LLC
  Del. Ch.· 2024-09-27
  The Delaware Superior Court granted Wellgistics, LLC's motions to dismiss Welgo, Inc.'s Third Amended Counterclaim (TAC) and Court of Chancery action, and to strike Welgo's affirmative defenses. The court found that Welgo failed to adequately plead its claims for breach of contra
• Franklin v. Dep't of Detention Servs.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-20
  A pro se prisoner's complaint must contain plausible factual allegations that state a claim for relief, and vague assertions or labels are insufficient. Entities like Sheriff's Offices are not suable under Florida law.
• Epson Am., Inc. v. Safe Space Scan Tech. LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-09-13
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to meet the heightened pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) for its Lanham Act and FDUTPA claims.
• Villanueva Castellanos v. BJ's Wholesale Club Inc
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-08-15
  The court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendant's affirmative defenses, striking the failure to mitigate defense but allowing the Fabre defense to proceed.
• Jones v. Eustice
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-08-08
  The court recommended granting dismissal for the First Amendment retaliation claim but denying dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, finding the prisoner had properly exhausted his claim.
• Bryan v. City of Orlando
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-07
  The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to strike the defendant's answer and affirmative defenses.
• XYZ Corp. v. The Individuals
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-08-05
  The court held that the notice pleading standard applies to affirmative defenses and granted in part and denied in part the motion to strike.
• Duncan
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2024-07-31
  The Court held that the plaintiff's claims against the individual DNREC employee did not relate back to the original filing and were barred by the statute of limitations. Consequently, the vicarious liability claim against DNREC for tortious interference with contract was also re
• Johnson v. Luminar Techs., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-05-31
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 because, while the use of a competitor's chip image was misleading, it was not material, and scienter was not adequately pleaded.
• N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Belgram
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-02-15
  The court held that affirmative defenses, even if pleaded as denials, should not be stricken but treated as specific denials, and that the heightened pleading standard of Twombly/Iqbal does not apply to affirmative defenses.
• Bynum v. Carnival Corp.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-01-22
  The court held that affirmative defenses need only provide fair notice and are not subject to the heightened pleading standards of Twombly and Iqbal. Certain defenses were struck or treated as denials, while others were allowed to proceed.