Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim

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

• 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.
• Allegiance Healthcare Corp. v. Coleman
  232 F. Supp. 2d 1329· S.D. Fla.· 2002-11-14 ·cited 21×
  The court held that a successor entity can enforce non-compete agreements acquired through stock purchases or mergers, and that the Uniform Trade Secrets Act preempts common law unfair competition claims based on the same allegations.
• Warren v. Soc'y Nat'l Bank
  905 F.2d 975· 6th Cir.· 1990-06-22 ·cited 21×
  The court concurred that the bank failed to show entitlement to dismissal for failure to state a claim.
• Maggette v. Dalsheim
  709 F.2d 800· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the pro se complaint for default and lack of personal involvement, as the allegations were sufficient and proper notice was not given.
• Sims v. Mercy Hosp. OF Monroe
  451 F.2d 171· 6th Cir.· 1971-11-26 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting a motion to dismiss by improperly considering matters outside the complaint and failing to allow amendment.
• Dragor Shipping Corp. v. Union Tank CAR Co.
  361 F.2d 43· 9th Cir.· 1966-04-07 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Arizona District Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant because the lawsuit concerning a settlement agreement and promissory note executed in New York did not arise out of or involve business done or transactions in Arizona, thus violating d
• Green v. Forney Eng'g Co.
  589 F.2d 243· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that dismissal for lack of prosecution was an abuse of discretion when the plaintiff's counsel's absence was due to medical reasons and not contumacious conduct.
• Watts v. Joggers Run Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc.
  133 F.4th 1032· 11th Cir.· 2025-04-07 ·cited 17×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's claims under the Fair Housing Act and Civil Rights Act, finding that the alleged post-acquisition discriminatory conduct by the HOA was actionable.
• Tanglewood E. Homeowners v. Charles-Thomas, Inc.
  849 F.2d 1568· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-28 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the complaint stated valid claims under CERCLA and RCRA, and that the district court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss.
• L.G. "Pat" Hickman and Paul Frazier v. Tosco Corp.
  840 F.2d 564· 8th Cir.· 1988-02-24 ·cited 17×
  The court held that an employer's refusal to 'bridge' an employee's service to allow them to reach full early retirement benefits, when not provided for in the plan, is an employment decision not subject to ERISA's fiduciary standards.
• Nat'l Subscription Television v. S & H TV
  644 F.2d 820· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-07 ·cited 17×
  The court held that subscription television (STV) signals, though intended for reception by the public, are not broadcast 'for the use of the general public' when access is restricted to paying subscribers via special equipment, and thus are protected by section 605 of the Federa
• Ditri v. Coldwell Banker Residential Affiliates, Inc.
  954 F.2d 869· 3d Cir.· 1992-01-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that plaintiffs' allegations were insufficient to state a claim under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act and that the district court lacked jurisdiction for trademark cancellation without an underlying valid claim.
• Ward v. Major General W. T. Hudnell
  366 F.2d 247· 5th Cir.· 1966-09-21 ·cited 16×
  Government officials acting within the scope of their duties and authority are immune from personal liability for actions taken in their official capacity, even if motivated by malice.
• Jeong Min Kim v. Keenan
  71 F. Supp. 2d 1228· M.D. Fla.· 1999-11-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that it had personal jurisdiction over the defendants and that the complaint stated a claim for professional negligence, denying the motion to dismiss. The court also denied the motion to strike punitive damages claims, pending further Eleventh Circuit review.
• Jacobson v. Cooper
  882 F.2d 717· 2d Cir.· 1989-08-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff adequately alleged a RICO enterprise distinct from the individual defendants and a pattern of racketeering activity, reversing the district court's dismissal.
• Randol Nichols v. United States
  796 F.2d 361· 10th Cir.· 1986-07-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in converting a motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion without proper notice, and that the government failed to establish that the employee was acting outside the scope of his employment.
• Neel v. Rehberg
  577 F.2d 262· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that claims arising from alleged mistreatment while incarcerated are not time-barred as continuing wrongs, but claims regarding refusal to arrest prior to incarceration are time-barred. The court also held that Georgia's tolling statute for prisoners does not apply
• Graue Mill Dev. Corp. v. Colonial Bank & Tr. Co. OF Chicago
  927 F.2d 988· 7th Cir.· 1991-03-20 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under the Bank Holding Company Act's anti-tying provision and RICO statutes due to insufficient allegations of fraud and anticompetitive effect.
• Statton v. Fla. Fed. Jud. Nominating Comm'n
  959 F.3d 1061· 11th Cir.· 2020-05-21 ·cited 12×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the Florida Federal Judicial Nominating Commission is not a federal agency under FOIA, and therefore the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
• Lazarre v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
  780 F. Supp. 2d 1320· S.D. Fla.· 2011-04-14 ·cited 12×
  The court granted Chase's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to failure to exhaust FIRREA administrative remedies, and granted Early Warning's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under the FCRA.
• Zimmer Paper Prods. Inc. v. Berger & Montague, P.C.
  758 F.2d 86· 3d Cir.· 1985-03-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a plaintiff's allegations of class counsel's failure to take reasonable follow-up steps after an initial notice with a low response rate, despite a large settlement fund, were sufficient to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, precluding dismissal or su
• Bolding v. Austin
  575 F.2d 461· 4th Cir.· 1978-04-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the complaint, which sought to have the federal district court assume supervision of the entire state prison system, failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and should have been dismissed.
• Thomas v. Carpenter
  881 F.2d 828· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-09 ·cited 11×
  A public employee states a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliation when their employer takes adverse actions against them for engaging in constitutionally protected speech, even if the employee was not terminated or demoted.
• Glenn v. First Nat'l Bank IN Grand Junction
  868 F.2d 368· 10th Cir.· 1989-02-15 ·cited 11×
  A party's request for leave to amend, made in response to a motion to dismiss, is insufficient to constitute a motion for leave to amend, and the court is not obligated to consider it.
• Tucker v. Carlson
  925 F.2d 330· 9th Cir.· 1991-02-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a federal prisoner's civil rights complaint challenging the fact or duration of confinement must be construed as a habeas corpus petition, and claims for damages as a Bivens action.
• Hamilton J. Whiting v. Maiolini
  921 F.2d 5· 1st Cir.· 1990-12-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that converting a motion for judgment on the pleadings to a motion for summary judgment without adequate notice and opportunity for discovery is improper.
• Rutan v. Republican Party OF Illinois
  848 F.2d 1396· 7th Cir.· 1988-06-08 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed dismissal of voter claims and remanded other claims, but the concurring opinion argues for a different analytical approach regarding First Amendment rights in patronage systems.
• Albrecht v. Lund
  845 F.2d 193· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the pleadings did not raise a substantial question of diversity of citizenship, and amendment of the complaint would be futile, thus affirming the dismissal.
• Brown v. J.I. Case Co.
  756 F.2d 48· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-17 ·cited 10×
  The filing of a request for appointed counsel, along with a Notice of Right-to-Sue, tolls the ninety-day statutory filing period until the court rules on the request, provided the request is made in good faith and without inequitable conduct.
• 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.
• Bright v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
  463 F.2d 240· 9th Cir.· 1972-06-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a claim for wanton, reckless, and malicious misconduct in failing to withdraw defective tires from the market fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under California law if no physical injury to person or property is alleged.
• Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Access Telecom, Inc.
  642 F. Supp. 2d 1354· S.D. Fla.· 2009-07-24 ·cited 8×
  The court denied all motions to dismiss and strike, finding that the plaintiff adequately pleaded its claims and that subject matter jurisdiction was proper.
• Bryan Ashley Int'l, Inc. v. Shelby Williams Indus., Inc.
  932 F. Supp. 290· S.D. Fla.· 1996-07-25 ·cited 8×
  The court denied both parties' motions for judgment on the pleadings, finding that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding the existence of an actual controversy.
• Cook v. N. Cal. Collection Serv. Inc.
  911 F.2d 242· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an advertisement claiming "low cost commercial collection experts" and implying lower rates than attorneys constitutes puffery and is not actionable false advertising under the Lanham Act.
• Yates v. Jamison
  782 F.2d 1182· 4th Cir.· 1986-02-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' due process claim must be dismissed because they have an adequate postdeprivation remedy under state law, specifically an action for inverse condemnation.
• 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.
• Simons v. Montgomery Cnty. Police Officers-Sara A. Hume
  762 F.2d 30· 4th Cir.· 1985-05-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims, based on a search and arrest, constituted state torts, not violations of constitutional magnitude actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Madison v. United States
  752 F.2d 607· 11th Cir.· 1985-02-08 ·cited 8×
  A document filed on official tax forms, even with a disclaimer, can be considered a 'purported return' for the purpose of the frivolous return penalty if it lacks substantial information or indicates a substantially incorrect self-assessment due to a frivolous position.
• Duane v. Haas
  725 F.2d 71· 7th Cir.· 1984-01-12 ·cited 8×
  A corporation violates SEC Rule 14a-7 if it makes a shareholder's proxy materials false by changing the meeting date to frustrate the shareholder's mailing, and the shareholder can recover damages.
• Shui King Tam Wong v. Griffin B. Bell
  642 F.2d 359· 9th Cir.· 1981-04-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i) because the alien was statutorily ineligible for the requested waiver.
• Chanofsky v. The Chase Manhattan Corp.
  530 F.2d 470· 2d Cir.· 1976-03-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the judgment should be vacated because the district court treated the case as a trial on the merits due to a misunderstanding between court and counsel, rather than a summary judgment proceeding.
• Blumenthal v. Girard Tr. Co.
  141 F.2d 849· 3d Cir.· 1944-04-03 ·cited 8×
  A building service employee is not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act if their work, like janitorial duties, only remotely affects a tenant engaged in interstate commerce, rather than being actually in or closely related to the movement of commerce.
• Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Ass'n
  987 F.2d 278· 5th Cir.· 1993-04-01 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under LMRDA § 431(c) because he did not demonstrate "just cause" for accessing union audiotapes, and that his § 411 claim was also without merit as it could not circumvent the "just cause" requirement.
• Frasier v. Gen. Elec. Co.
  930 F.2d 1004· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-12 ·cited 7×
  The court held that while the complaint did not sufficiently state a federal claim, the district court should have allowed the pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint to assert an Equal Pay Act claim.
• Hernandez v. Two Bros. Farm, LLC
  579 F. Supp. 2d 1379· S.D. Fla.· 2008-09-29 ·cited 6×
  The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim and motion for a more definite statement, finding the complaint sufficiently clear and supplemental jurisdiction appropriate.
• Hollingsworth v. Iwerks Ent., Inc.
  947 F. Supp. 473· M.D. Fla.· 1996-12-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded fraud with particularity under Rule 9(b) and that personal jurisdiction could potentially be exercised over certain defendants under Florida's long-arm statute, but not others.
• Teal v. Eagle Fleet, Inc.
  933 F.2d 341· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the Teals' motions to set aside the settlement agreement because they were untimely and lacked a basis under Rule 60(b).
• Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock Cnty., Tex.
  929 F.2d 1078· 5th Cir.· 1991-04-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the prisoner's § 1983 claim for failure to state a claim, as the complaint alleged sufficient facts regarding unconstitutional deprivation of food and punishment without due process.
• 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.
• Brogan v. SAN Mateo Cnty.
  901 F.2d 762· 9th Cir.· 1990-04-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the workfare program and its administration did not violate the Constitution or Brogan's civil rights, and that adequate state remedies existed for any potential state law claims.