Rule 12(B)(1) Dismissal

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

• Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank OF Am.
  549 F.2d 597· 9th Cir.· 1976-12-27 ·cited 141×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the antitrust action based on the act of state doctrine and lack of jurisdiction, and that the plaintiffs should have been afforded an opportunity for full discovery.
• Young v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Co.
  438 F.2d 757· 3d Cir.· 1971-02-11 ·cited 80×
  The court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 applies to private employment discrimination and that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not deprive district courts of jurisdiction over § 1981 actions.
• Sacks v. Reynolds Sec., Inc.
  593 F.2d 1234· D.C. Cir.· 1978-12-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a custodial transfer of stock accounts between brokers, without a change in ownership or control, does not constitute a "sale" under Rule 10b-5, and that NYSE Rule 412 does not create an implied private federal right of action.
• Simanonok v. Germaine B. Simanonok
  787 F.2d 1517· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the plaintiff's due process claims were not wholly meritless and required further proceedings.
• Smith v. Winter
  782 F.2d 508· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were moot, but the claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against local appellees for violating First Amendment rights was properly stated.
• S&M Brands, Inc. v. State of Ga. EX REL.
  925 F.3d 1198· 11th Cir.· 2019-05-29 ·cited 9×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of S&M Brands' complaint, finding no plausible claims for Contract Clause or Equal Protection violations and that the state law claim was barred by sovereign immunity.
• Rhulen Agency, Inc. v. Ala. Ins. Guar. Ass'n
  896 F.2d 674· 2d Cir.· 1990-02-14 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the suit must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the citizenship of the defendant unincorporated associations, which includes New York members, destroys complete diversity.
• Moir v. Greater Cleveland Reg'l Transit Auth.
  895 F.2d 266· 6th Cir.· 1990-02-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) is a political subdivision of the State of Ohio and the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) is a labor organization, both exempt from federal jurisdiction under the NLRA.
• Del. Valley Citizens Council FOR Clean AIR v. Davis
  932 F.2d 256· 3d Cir.· 1991-05-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that claims alleging direct violations of the Clean Air Act's statutory provisions, rather than violations of an existing emission standard or limitation within an approved plan, must be brought as petitions for review in the courts of appeals under § 7607, not as
• Awilda Arroyo-Torres v. Ponce Fed. Bank
  918 F.2d 276· 1st Cir.· 1990-11-06 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that no implied private right of action exists under the CTRA or 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) for an employee discharged for cooperating with a federal investigation.
• The Careau Grp. v. United Farm Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  940 F.2d 1291· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in fact-finding at the jurisdictional stage when those facts were entwined with the merits of the affirmative defense.
• Growth Horizons, Inc. v. Del. Cnty.
  983 F.2d 1277· 3d Cir.· 1993-01-21 ·cited 1×
  A district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the legal insufficiency of a federal claim is improper; such claims should be decided on the merits. A public agency's refusal to pay for housing, even if influenced by bias, does not violate the Fair H
• Martin v. Dejoy
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-01-29
  The court accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, granting the defendant's motion to dismiss.
• Norris v. Acting Secretary
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-10-15
  The court held that the 120-day waiting period under 5 U.S.C. § 7702(e)(1)(B) is a strict claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional prerequisite, and a regulation cannot toll this period. Therefore, the plaintiff's civil action was timely filed.
• Gonzalez v. Batmasian
  2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27194· S.D. Fla.· 2017-02-24
  The court held that it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the defendants' state-law counterclaim in an FLSA action due to exceptional circumstances, including the disfavored nature of employer counterclaims in FLSA cases and the lack of factual overlap.