-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-10-31
The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's dismissal, holding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not bar the claims because the appellant was not a party to the state court foreclosure judgment, and remanded the fraudulent transfer claim for further consideration.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-10-23
The court held that res judicata barred the plaintiffs' claims against Auto Export Shipping, Inc. and Auto Export Shipping Management because the claims were identical to those previously litigated and dismissed with prejudice in state court.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-10-23
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims due to the Younger and Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrines.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-10-05
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, overruling the plaintiff's objections, denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice, and dismissing the complaint with leave to amend.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-09-29
The bankruptcy court properly dismissed the Chapter 11 case because the debtor was a non-business trust ineligible to file, and there was no reasonable likelihood of reorganization given the substantial secured debt and lack of assets/income.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-09-26
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary injunction, finding she failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and that the case may be barred by Rooker-Feldman or Younger abstention doctrines.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-08-01
The federal district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review a state court judgment under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, even when a party seeks to amend their complaint.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-07-26
The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for recusal, motion for supplemental pleading, and motion for a temporary restraining order, while granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motions to dismiss.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-07-06
The court accepted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to dismiss all counts of the Amended Complaint and imposed pre-filing sanctions.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-06-09
The court granted motions to dismiss, denying the plaintiff's request to amend and permanently enjoining him from filing new actions without prior court approval.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-06-08
A state court judge is entitled to absolute judicial immunity for acts taken in their judicial capacity, and federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state court judgments under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-06-05
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the complaint.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-06-02
The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims due to a lack of diversity and federal question jurisdiction, and potentially due to abstention doctrines.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-04-24
The court recommended denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the complaint without prejudice, but granting the plaintiff leave to amend.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-04-20
The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and collateral estoppel do not bar the plaintiff's Equal Pay Act claim, and the complaint sufficiently pleads retaliation.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-04-14
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to establish diversity jurisdiction, but granted him one final opportunity to amend.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-04-06
The court held that the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied and the case dismissed because the complaint fails to state a claim due to judicial immunity and the court lacks jurisdiction to review state court orders.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-04-03
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under § 1983 for denial of equal protection, Eighth Amendment rights, or due process regarding DNA evidence comparison, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-04-03
The court held that abstention doctrines and claim-splitting did not warrant a stay because the state court proceedings would not resolve the federal constitutional claims. The court also held that certain allegations in the amended complaint were shotgun pleadings and would be s
-
N.D. Fla.·
2023-03-27
The court held that the complaint was a shotgun pleading and dismissed it, granting the plaintiff one final opportunity to amend.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-03-24
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the plaintiffs' claims, as they were an attempt to challenge state court foreclosure judgments.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-03-22
The court held that the amended complaint was a shotgun pleading and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, but granted plaintiff a final opportunity to amend due to her pro se status.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-03-20
The court held that the second amended complaint is a shotgun pleading and fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction, warranting dismissal.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-03-20
The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims due to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, as the claims were inextricably intertwined with prior state court judgments.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-03-09
The court recommended denying the initial IFP motion, granting the amended IFP motion, and dismissing the case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-03-09
The court held that the plaintiff's claims were properly dismissed due to the statute of limitations, Eleventh Amendment immunity, and the domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-02-23
The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to review state court judgments under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and remanded the case to state court.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-01-27
The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by statutes of limitations, judicial immunity, and failure to state a claim, and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-01-27
The court held that the plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, like the prior version, failed to cure pleading deficiencies and was therefore dismissed.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-11-30
The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not divest it of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs' appeal of the state court judgment remains pending.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2022-10-28
The court held that the plaintiff's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were barred by judicial immunity and the Eleventh Amendment, as the requested relief was retrospective and an adequate remedy at law existed.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-10-24
The court denied the plaintiff's emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction because it was procedurally and substantively deficient.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-09-30
The court held that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's complaint due to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, as the claims are inextricably intertwined with a prior state court judgment.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-08-10
The Court held that the action must be dismissed without prejudice because the pro se plaintiffs failed to timely serve the defendant and failed to respond to the court's order to show cause.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-07-07
The federal court dismissed the case because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the domestic relations exception and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, as the claims involved state child custody matters and sought to review state court judgments.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2022-06-24
The court held that a pro se plaintiff should be given another opportunity to amend her complaint, even if she has amended previously, if the prior dismissals were not solely for failure to state a claim.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-06-24
The court held that the wife lacked standing, the husband's claims were barred by Rooker-Feldman and the statute of limitations, and the official-capacity claim failed Monell requirements.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-06-02
The Court adopts in part the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, dismissing the case without prejudice because the complaint fails to state a claim and the Court lacks jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-05-16
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review a prior state court judgment under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-05-06
The court held that the plaintiff's current case must be dismissed with prejudice for improper claims splitting, as it arises from the same nucleus of operative facts and involves the same parties as two prior dismissed cases.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-04-12
The court held that the amended complaint must be dismissed for failure to establish subject-matter jurisdiction and for failing to meet pleading standards under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 9(b).
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-03-31
The court held that while dismissal was not warranted, abstention under Colorado River was appropriate due to parallel state court litigation, leading to a stay of the federal action.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-03-29
The court held that the defendants are not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity for the unreasonable search claim because there was no genuine issue of material fact supporting the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-03-24
The court denied the defendant's emergency request for a temporary restraining order and remanded the case to state court.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-03-24
The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding the plaintiff's claims regarding excessive fines and unconstitutional vagueness lacked merit as a matter of law.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-02-22
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims due to the probate exception and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and that the defendant judge was protected by judicial immunity.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-01-31
The court held that the pro se plaintiff's complaint was a shotgun pleading, failed to state a claim, and was likely barred by judicial immunity and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-01-21
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and denied the motion for a temporary restraining order due to numerous deficiencies.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-11-30
The court held that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, res judicata, statute of limitations, and lack of standing, and that the State of Florida was immune from suit.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-11-30
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was a shotgun pleading and granted the defendants' motion for a more definite statement.