Rule 12(B)(1)

107 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Eaton v. Dorchester Dev., Inc.
  692 F.2d 727· 11th Cir.· 1982-11-29 ·cited 90×
  A district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was premature when the jurisdictional facts were intertwined with the merits of the case and discovery was incomplete.
• Harper Plastics, Inc. v. Amoco Chems. Corp.
  657 F.2d 939· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-24 ·cited 57×
  Res judicata bars a litigant from bringing a contract claim in state court after a federal court dismissed related antitrust claims on the merits, because the litigant split its cause of action by failing to join the contract claim in the federal action.
• Frederick Hart & Co., Inc. v. Recordgraph Corp.
  169 F.2d 580· 3d Cir.· 1948-08-13 ·cited 55×
  The court held that a justiciable controversy exists when a plaintiff alleges threats of infringement and the defendant's actions support such allegations, even if direct threats are denied.
• Hunt v. Mobil OIL Corp.
  550 F.2d 68· 2d Cir.· 1977-01-12 ·cited 50×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority's interpretation of the act of state doctrine is too broad and would improperly shield defendants from antitrust liability.
• Molnar v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc.
  231 F.2d 684· 9th Cir.· 1956-01-04 ·cited 36×
  A federal court may dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, even on its own initiative, if the pleadings do not affirmatively establish jurisdiction, particularly when fictitious defendants are used to obscure citizenship.
• Cardio-Medical Assocs., Ltd. v. Crozer-Chester Med. Ctr. & James H. Loucks, M.D.
  721 F.2d 68· 3d Cir.· 1983-11-18 ·cited 31×
  The court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged a substantial and adverse effect on interstate commerce to withstand a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but affirmed the striking of their jury demand due to waiver.
• Hunt v. Local Bd. NO. 197
  438 F.2d 1128· 3d Cir.· 1971-02-05 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the appellant failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction in the district court because his claims involved factual determinations and discretionary judgments by the local board, which are barred from pre-induction review by statute.
• O'Donnell v. Wien AIR Alaska, Inc.
  551 F.2d 1141· 9th Cir.· 1977-04-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action and granting summary judgment, as the fire-hire policy was intertwined with the major dispute regarding crew complement, necessitating a status quo injunction.
• Foremost-McKESSON, Inc. v. The Islamic Republic OF Iran
  905 F.2d 438· D.C. Cir.· 1990-06-15 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court did not err in allowing Iran to amend its answer to include the defense of sovereign immunity, but remanded for further factual development on whether Iran exercised sufficient control over the dairy to overcome the presumption of separatene
• Hornsby v. United States Postal Serv.
  787 F.2d 87· 3d Cir.· 1986-03-26 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the time limits for filing a Title VII action are statutes of limitation, not jurisdictional, and that depositing a postal notice in a mailbox does not constitute 'receipt of notice' if the actual letter is not received.
• United Elec. Radio & Mach. Workers OF Am. v. Honeywell Inc.
  522 F.2d 1221· 7th Cir.· 1975-08-27 ·cited 24×
  A union's allegations of an employer's persistent violation of a collective bargaining agreement and prior arbitration awards are insufficient to justify bypassing the contractual arbitration process unless specific criteria are met, which were not alleged here.
• Moreland v. W. Pa. Interscholastic Athletic League & Pa. Interscholastic Athletic Ass'n & Sch. Dist. of the Borough of Aliquippa
  572 F.2d 121· 3d Cir.· 1978-02-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the PIAA's suspension of Aliquippa High School's basketball team from post-season play, due to prior rule violations, was rationally related to legitimate athletic league purposes and did not violate equal protection. However, the district court improperly dis
• Save OUR Cemeteries, Inc. v. The Archdiocese OF NEW Orleans, Inc.
  568 F.2d 1074· 5th Cir.· 1978-02-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the antitrust claims were properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the civil rights claims were properly affirmed as summary judgment. The court expressed no opinion on state law claims.
• Barrett Computer Servs., Inc. v. PDA, Inc.
  884 F.2d 214· 5th Cir.· 1989-09-25 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on a lack of standing, as a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the assignment of rights.
• Canadian Overseas Ores Ltd. v. Compania de Acero del Pacifico S.A.
  727 F.2d 274· 2d Cir.· 1984-02-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant did not waive its sovereign immunity defense by failing to assert it in its initial motions, as the defense can be raised until a responsive pleading is filed.
• Mullen v. Fitz Simons & Connell Dredge & Dock Co.
  172 F.2d 601· 7th Cir.· 1948-12-30 ·cited 14×
  Seamen may join claims for maintenance and cure with claims under the Jones Act in a single federal court action.
• Robin Prods. Co. v. Tomecek
  465 F.2d 1193· 6th Cir.· 1972-08-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the declaratory judgment action for lack of jurisdiction without an evidentiary hearing, as a genuine dispute existed regarding whether a charge of infringement could be inferred.
• Zivojinovich v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co., LLC
  445 F. Supp. 2d 1337· M.D. Fla.· 2006-08-01 ·cited 11×
  The court held that plaintiffs lacked standing for their loss of business revenue claim and dismissed it, but denied motions to dismiss most other federal and state law claims, including a counterclaim for battery.
• LFC Lessors, Inc. v. Pac. Sewer Maint. Corp.
  739 F.2d 4· 1st Cir.· 1984-07-11 ·cited 11×
  A forum selection clause stating actions must be brought in the 'courts of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' is interpreted to mean only the state courts, and thus requires dismissal of a federal diversity action.
• In re Banco Santander Securities-Optimal Litigation
  732 F. Supp. 2d 1305· S.D. Fla.· 2010-07-30 ·cited 9×
  The court granted six defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, finding Ireland to be a more convenient forum.
• Rennie v. Garrett
  896 F.2d 1057· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-26 ·cited 8×
  The administrative deadline for federal employees to bring a retaliation complaint to an EEO counselor should be construed as a statute of limitations, not a jurisdictional prerequisite.
• Eldeeb v. Chertoff
  619 F. Supp. 2d 1190· M.D. Fla.· 2007-07-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jurisdictional bar under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not preclude review of the agency's alleged unreasonable delay in adjudicating an I-485 application, as such delay may render the decision non-discretionary.
• Baydar v. Renaissance Cruises, Inc.
  35 F. Supp. 2d 916· S.D. Fla.· 1999-01-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient contacts between the defendant and the United States to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction over the Jones Act claim.
• Richmond v. United States
  945 F.2d 765· 4th Cir.· 1991-09-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Quiet Title Act's statute of limitations barred the railroad's action to quiet title because the railroad had actual notice of the government's interest in restricting land use since 1938.
• Englert v. City OF McKEESPORT & Middle Dep't Inspection Agency
  736 F.2d 96· 3d Cir.· 1984-06-11 ·cited 4×
  Allegations of 'shifting' interstate commerce are sufficient to satisfy the Sherman Act's jurisdictional requirement and withstand dismissal under both Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6).
• Ostroff v. State
  554 F. Supp. 347· M.D. Fla.· 1983-01-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims for damages arising from the termination of Social Security benefits, due to the Social Security Act's limitations and Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.
• Sanford M. Nobel and Carol Nobel Hirsh v. T.J. Morchesky & Johnstown Bank & Tr. Co.
  697 F.2d 97· 3d Cir.· 1982-12-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Max Nobel's resignation was effective for diversity jurisdiction purposes, the prior state action was not res judicata, Menallen had standing as equitable owner, and the finding on the date of coal removal was clearly erroneous.
• Quintana v. Califano
  623 F.2d 128· 10th Cir.· 1979-11-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint as moot without determining class certification, especially when the issue might evade review.
• Liubimtseva v. The Sec'y of the U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-04-22 ·cited 3×
  The court held that it has the discretion to dismiss a case without prejudice for failure to comply with local rules, specifically for failing to respond to a motion to dismiss.
• Abusaid v. Hillsborough Cnty. BD.
  637 F. Supp. 2d 1002· M.D. Fla.· 2007-09-06 ·cited 3×
  The court found that Plaintiff had standing to challenge specific permitting provisions of the Ordinance for lack of circumscribed time and limitless discretion, but not other constitutional 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.
• Flexiteek Americas, Inc. v. Plasteak, Inc.
  626 F. Supp. 2d 1251· S.D. Fla.· 2009-06-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the agreement language and surrounding circumstances demonstrated a clear intent to transfer all substantial rights in the invention and patent applications, granting plaintiffs standing to sue for infringement.
• Pace v. Platt
  228 F. Supp. 2d 1332· N.D. Fla.· 2002-08-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the IRS and its employees are immune from suit for claims related to tax assessment and collection, and that plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
• Gill v. Three Dimension Sys., Inc.
  87 F. Supp. 2d 1278· M.D. Fla.· 2000-02-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it had federal question jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, but lacked personal jurisdiction over two defendants. The court denied dismissal for most claims but dismissed the mismanagement claim.
• Dall v. United States
  42 F. Supp. 2d 1275· M.D. Fla.· 1998-11-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Feres doctrine bars subject matter jurisdiction over a suit brought by a service member injured in an activity incident to service, even if the activity occurred off-base and involved alleged negligence in aircraft maintenance.
• Merrill Benton v. United States & the United States Postal Serv.
  960 F.2d 19· 5th Cir.· 1992-02-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Federal Employees Compensation Act's (FECA) exclusive remedy provision barred the plaintiff's claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for injuries already compensated by FECA, and that the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Ac
• Michael A. Fuentes, M.D. v. South Hills Cardiology
  946 F.2d 196· 3d Cir.· 1991-10-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff adequately pled the interstate commerce element necessary to invoke federal jurisdiction under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and sufficiently alleged a conspiracy and restraint of trade to survive a motion to dismiss.
• Cal. Int'l Chem. Co. v. Neptune Pool Serv., Inc.
  770 F. Supp. 1530· M.D. Fla.· 1991-07-02 ·cited 2×
  The court denied motions to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs adequately pleaded claims for RICO violations, antitrust violations, and tortious interference with business relationships, and that defendants were not entitled to sovereign immunity or state action immunity.
• Barlow v. Marion Cnty. Hosp. Dist.
  495 F. Supp. 682· M.D. Fla.· 1980-07-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while plaintiffs stated constitutional claims over which it had jurisdiction, they failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the Hill-Burton Act because they did not allege exhaustion of administrative remedies as required by the statute.
• Parks v. Richard
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-07-21 ·cited 1×
  A defendant's removal of its website does not moot an ADA claim if third-party booking sites remain non-compliant and the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief.
• Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. Unidentified
  675 F. Supp. 2d 1126· M.D. Fla.· 2009-12-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) bars jurisdiction over the shipwreck and its contents, as they are the property of Spain and not subject to U.S. court adjudication.
• Shaunnessey v. Monteris Med., Inc.
  554 F. Supp. 2d 1321· M.D. Fla.· 2008-05-08 ·cited 1×
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, granting the motion to dismiss for lack of actual controversy and personal jurisdiction.
• Haddad v. Rav Bahamas, Ltd.
  431 F. Supp. 2d 1278· S.D. Fla.· 2006-05-10 ·cited 1×
  A joint venture interest is not a security under federal law if the investor retains significant control or the transaction is a private, one-on-one agreement not intended for public trading.
• The Ohio Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. United States
  922 F.2d 320· 6th Cir.· 1990-12-20 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the taxpayer's suit to recover overpaid taxes was timely because the IRS failed to provide sufficient evidence that a waiver of the notice of disallowance was filed, thus the two-year limitations period began from the date of the notice of disallowance.
• Ahmed Shaikh v. Fox News Network, LLC
  11th Cir.· 2026-06-04
  Federal courts may dismiss a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the frivolous claim exception where allegations are wholly insubstantial and frivolous with no plausible foundation, even when a factual attack on jurisdiction is presented. Shaikh's allegations that
• Volpi
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2026-02-18
  A passenger injured in a boating accident brought a declaratory judgment action against the boat rental operator's liability insurer, seeking to compel coverage. The court denied the insurer's motion to dismiss, finding that the passenger sufficiently pleaded he was either an int
• IRV Edwards, M.D. v. Gigacquisitions2, LLC
  Del. Ch.· 2025-07-25
  The Court of Chancery dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, finding a lack of personal jurisdiction over Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company, no standing for the breach of contract claim, and that the remaining claims were either time-barred or failed to state a claim upon whi
• Routeware, Inc. v. Carver
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-25
  The court recommended granting plaintiff's motion for default judgment and permanent injunction because the defendant willfully failed to defend the action and the plaintiff adequately alleged a breach of contract claim and grounds for injunctive relief.
• Manzini v. Cypress
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-07-23
  Nicolas Manzini, a former lawyer, sued Miccosukee Tribe leaders Talbert Cypress and Lucas Osceola in federal court alleging they violated the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and defrauded casino patrons by manipulating cash-out kiosks to avoid refunding coin change. The court found
• Assi v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-07-08
  Mustapha Assi, a naturalized U.S. citizen, sued federal agencies after being placed on the Terrorist Screening Database and subjected to enhanced airport screening without explanation, claiming violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and his constitutional rights under the