Rule 12(B)(1) Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

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

• Tomas Menchaca and wife v. Chrysler Credit Corp.
  613 F.2d 507· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-07 ·cited 130×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the district court's dismissal and remand for trial, arguing that the jurisdictional issue was factually intertwined with the merits and should not have been decided summarily.
• The Exch. Nat'l Bank OF Chicago v. Touche Ross & Co.
  544 F.2d 1126· 2d Cir.· 1976-06-09 ·cited 128×
  The court held that the notes at issue were not securities within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as they were issued in a commercial context to finance a business, rather than for investment purposes.
• Kennedy v. Floridian Hotel, Inc.
  998 F.3d 1221· 11th Cir.· 2021-05-27 ·cited 101×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the ADA claims, but remanded for the dismissal of Count I to be without prejudice.
• 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.
• Augustine v. United States
  704 F.2d 1074· 9th Cir.· 1983-04-26 ·cited 69×
  The court held that when the jurisdictional issue of claim accrual under the FTCA is intertwined with the merits of the case, the district court must apply summary judgment standards and resolve the merits to determine jurisdiction.
• Gumer v. Shearson
  516 F.2d 283· 2d Cir.· 1974-12-16 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint.
• Gunvant D. Shah v. MT. Zion Hosp. & Med. Ctr.
  642 F.2d 268· 9th Cir.· 1981-02-11 ·cited 42×
  The court affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no merit to the plaintiff's arguments regarding dismissals and summary judgment.
• Wheeler v. Main Hurdman
  825 F.2d 257· 10th Cir.· 1987-07-27 ·cited 40×
  Federal antidiscrimination laws do not apply to bona fide general partners, as they are not considered employees under these statutes.
• Kehr Packages, Inc. v. Fidelcor, Inc.
  926 F.2d 1406· 3d Cir.· 1991-03-06 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the amended complaint sufficiently alleged a pattern of racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and (d) by alleging a 19-month scheme of mail fraud.
• 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.
• Melvin A. Seglin, M.D. v. Truman Esau
  769 F.2d 1274· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to establish a substantial effect on interstate commerce, thus failing to state a claim under the Sherman Act.
• Cloverleaf Standardbred Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. The Nat'l Bank OF Wash.
  699 F.2d 1274· D.C. Cir.· 1983-02-25 ·cited 18×
  A district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing an action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 when a necessary party could not be joined without destroying diversity jurisdiction.
• JM Mech. Corp. v. The United States
  716 F.2d 190· 3d Cir.· 1983-09-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that JM's claims for HUD's negligence in failing to investigate, verify, and secure valid performance bonds were not barred by the FTCA's misrepresentation exception, and thus the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• 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.
• Triplett v. Heckler
  767 F.2d 210· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's action was untimely filed, as the Appeals Council's initial denial letter constituted the final decision for limitations purposes, and the subsequent letter reviewing new evidence did not constitute a reopening of the case.
• Commodities Exp. Co. v. U.S. Customs Serv.
  888 F.2d 431· 6th Cir.· 1989-10-24 ·cited 7×
  The Court of International Trade likely has exclusive jurisdiction over the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), and the district court should consider transferring the case to that court.
• Boyle v. The Governor's Veterans Outreach & Assistance Ctr.
  925 F.2d 71· 3d Cir.· 1991-01-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the dismissal of an employee by a federally funded organization was not state action, and therefore not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because the organization's relationship with the state was too tenuous.
• Davis v. Ohio Barge Line, Inc.
  697 F.2d 549· 3d Cir.· 1983-01-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims, primarily concerning wrongful discharge and challenging an arbitrator's award based on a private settlement agreement, did not sufficiently allege a violation of the collective bargaining agreement to establish federal jurisdiction unde
• Villeda Aldana v. Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc.
  305 F. Supp. 2d 1285· S.D. Fla.· 2003-12-12 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' allegations of torture, unlawful detention, and denial of the right to organize did not rise to the level of violations of customary international law actionable under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) or Torture Victims Protection Act (TVPA).
• 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.
• Layton v. United States
  919 F.2d 1333· 8th Cir.· 1990-11-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred by converting a motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion without providing the parties an opportunity to respond, and by improperly applying Arkansas' assumption of risk doctrine as a complete bar to recovery.
• 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).
• 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.
• Tamiami P'rs v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida
  898 F. Supp. 1549· S.D. Fla.· 1994-02-28 ·cited 3×
  The court granted the Miccosukee Tribal Court's motion to dismiss and granted in part and denied in part the remaining defendants' motion to dismiss, finding federal question jurisdiction over challenges to tribal court jurisdiction and actions exceeding sovereign powers.
• Eidson v. Arenas
  837 F. Supp. 1158· M.D. Fla.· 1993-11-10 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the defendants, as private actors, did not act under color of state law, thus the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction for the federal claims and pendant jurisdiction for the state claims.
• 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.
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• 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
• Cassidy v. Citrus Cnty. Mosquito Control Dist.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-08
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction and failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, warranting dismissal.
• Hernandez v. Cervera Real Est., Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-01-27
  The Court held that the unchecked box in the agreement pertained only to attorneys' fees and not the arbitration clause, thus the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable.
• Petersen v. Bain
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-15
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was deficient for failure to state a claim and potentially lacking subject matter jurisdiction, but granted the pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend.
• Surgento v. Rest. Life LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-05-06
  A plaintiff's general allegation of fulfilling conditions precedent to filing an FMWA claim is sufficient at the motion to dismiss stage, and failure to satisfy a condition precedent does not deprive a federal court of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Mafundu v. Mayorkas
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-08-08
  The Court granted the motion to dismiss, holding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Immigration and Nationality Act bars judicial review of decisions regarding waivers and mandamus relief was not appropriate.
• Avini Health Corp. v. BioGenus LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-03-17
  The court held that the defendant's motion to dismiss, which attacked the plaintiff's standing by disputing the merits of the underlying breach of contract claim, was premature and therefore denied.
• MSP Recovery Claims v. Am. Fam. Connect Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-03-15
  The court held that the plaintiff adequately pleaded standing and stated a claim under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act and for breach of contract, but dismissed the declaratory judgment count as duplicative.
• Coker v. Warren
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-03-02
  Befaithful Coker, a community activist, sued multiple defendants, including city officials, a judge, and private citizens, alleging that they retaliated against her when the Lake City Council initially appointed but then refused to seat her on the council after she made public di
• Williams v. Jones
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-10-07
  The court granted defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim and that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
• Crossdale v. Swain
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-01-31
  The court held that the complaint failed to establish federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction, and thus dismissed all counts.
• Tran v. Nomad Grp. LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-12-07
  The court denied the motion to dismiss the unpaid wages and retaliation claims, granted the motion to withdraw the notice of settlement, denied the motion for sanctions, and denied the motion to enforce settlement.
• MSP Recovery Claims v. Main St. Am. Grp., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-03-29
  The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, finding plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims.
• Lotero-Diaz v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-12-22
  The district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review claims challenging an alien's removal order or the proceedings leading to it, as these are exclusively vested in the courts of appeals under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
• Affordable Aerial Photography, Inc. v. Beycome Brokerage Realty LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-08-27
  The court granted the motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the original federal claims were settled.
• Randy Rosenberg, D.C., P.A. v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2019-12-13
  The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing the declaratory judgment claim but denying dismissal of the breach of contract claim at this stage.
• Keller v. Fla. Dep't of Health
  682 F. Supp. 2d 1302· M.D. Fla.· 2010-02-01
  The court held that the state agency is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment for FLSA retaliation claims, as Congress has not validly abrogated this immunity, nor has the state waived it by accepting federal funds.
• Provost v. Huber
  594 F.2d 717· 8th Cir.· 1979-03-23
  The court held that a house being transported over frozen water, which subsequently broke through the ice and submerged, does not constitute a maritime activity or a vessel, thus lacking the necessary nexus for federal admiralty jurisdiction in a salvage claim.