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

• In re Swine FLU Immunization Prods. Liab. Litig. Linda Kenneda v. United States
  880 F.2d 1439· D.C. Cir.· 1989-08-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's administrative claim was timely filed because the statutory period for filing was extended by a Sunday and a snow day, and the government failed to provide sufficient evidence of widespread public awareness of the link between the swine flu vac
• Sullivan v. United States
  788 F.2d 813· 1st Cir.· 1986-04-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the documents submitted by the taxpayer constituted a 'purported return' and that the penalty for filing a frivolous return was properly assessed. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the taxpayer's complaint.
• C.M. Flowers v. Cont'l Grain Co.
  775 F.2d 1051· 8th Cir.· 1985-10-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations did not sufficiently plead violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) or its predicate offenses, thus affirming the dismissal of the federal claims.
• Elfriede Mayer v. OIL Field Sys. Corp.
  721 F.2d 59· 2d Cir.· 1983-10-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff had standing to sue under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, and that the amended complaint sufficiently alleged a fraudulent scheme.
• 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
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. The Seaboard Corp.
  677 F.2d 1315· 9th Cir.· 1982-05-24 ·cited 6×
  Dismissal with prejudice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) was proper because the cross-claim failed to allege sufficient facts demonstrating the bank's knowledge and participation in the alleged fraud.
• Howard Routh & Sons v. United States
  668 F.2d 454· 10th Cir.· 1981-12-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the United States as a defendant because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the discretionary nature of the government's actions and the operational negligence of its employees.
• Airport Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Prevost Car, Inc.
  788 F. Supp. 1203· S.D. Fla.· 1992-04-03 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a motion to strike an amended complaint filed during a pending motion to dismiss is permissible, but the amended complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim under the economic loss rule and lack of privity for the warranty claim.
• BP Prods. N. Am., Inc. v. Super Stop 79, Inc.
  464 F. Supp. 2d 1253· S.D. Fla.· 2006-12-07 ·cited 4×
  The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that enforcing forum selection clauses in promissory notes would lead to piecemeal litigation and inconsistent judgments, and that claims against a guarantor were not premature.
• Mertens v. Hewitt Assocs.
  948 F.2d 607· 9th Cir.· 1991-11-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that former employees could not bring claims against an ERISA plan's actuary for breach of fiduciary duty or knowing participation in a breach, but reversed the dismissal of their state law professional malpractice claim, finding the statute of limitations issue pr
• 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.
• Nancy C. Vickers and Robert v. Vickers
  827 F.2d 228· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-21 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of all counts, finding no justiciable controversy for declaratory relief, no actionable claim for accounting, and no actionable claims for fraudulent inducement, promissory estoppel, or negligent misrepresentation under Indiana la
• Less v. Lurie
  789 F.2d 624· 8th Cir.· 1986-04-28 ·cited 4×
  Plaintiffs stated a claim under SEC Rule 10b-5 by alleging that the partnership formed to invest was itself a sham and part of a scheme to defraud, coupled with material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the investment.
• Hillary J. Hardison v. Gen. Fin. Corp. & Gen. Fin. Corp. of Ill.
  738 F.2d 893· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a lender's inclusion of a reaffirmed debt in the amount financed, rather than the finance charge, does not violate the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) when the reaffirmed debt is treated as a refinancing.
• 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).
• Zerman v. Melton
  735 F.2d 751· 2d Cir.· 1984-06-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to allege fraud with sufficient particularity to survive a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) and 12(b)(6).
• Forrest G. English v. Local Union #46
  654 F.2d 473· 7th Cir.· 1981-07-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the complaint adequately stated a claim for access to union records under 29 U.S.C. § 431(c), and that disputed material facts precluded dismissal or summary judgment. The court affirmed the denial of the motion to disqualify counsel.
• Messer v. Virgin Islands Urban Renewal Bd.
  623 F.2d 303· 3d Cir.· 1980-06-11 ·cited 4×
  A person who moves from property before the acquiring agency obtains title or the right to possession, or issues a written order to vacate, is not a "displaced person" eligible for relocation benefits under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
• Candis O. RAY v. Senator William Proxmire
  581 F.2d 998· D.C. Cir.· 1978-07-31 ·cited 4×
  A complaint alleging defamation, misuse of Senate facilities, voting for business interests, and unfair competition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
• Munson Line, Inc. v. Green
  165 F.2d 321· 2d Cir.· 1948-01-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an order dismissing some but not all counts of a complaint is not a final, appealable order when the remaining counts arise from the same set of facts.
• Calderon v. Sixt Rent a Car, LLC
  998 F. Supp. 2d 1360· S.D. Fla.· 2020-02-12 ·cited 3×
  The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss Calderon's claims and denied their motion to compel arbitration of Marin's claims.
• 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.
• Friedman v. S.C. Ins.
  855 F. Supp. 348· M.D. Fla.· 1994-06-08 ·cited 3×
  Federal law preempts state law remedies for attorneys' fees and emotional distress damages in breach of contract actions involving policies issued under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968.
• 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.
• Dukes Clothing, LLC v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co.
  35 F. 4th 1322· 11th Cir.· 2022-06-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that under Alabama law, "accidental physical loss or accidental physical damage" requires a tangible alteration to the insured property, and the presence of COVID-19 does not constitute such damage.
• UI Techs., Inc. v. Ricoma Int'l Corp.
  2019 WL 418860· S.D. Fla.· 2022-05-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that venue was improper in the Eastern District of New York because the defendants did not have a regular and established place of business there, and therefore granted the motion to transfer the case to the Southern District of Florida.
• 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.
• Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. United States
  6 F. Supp. 2d 1346· S.D. Fla.· 1998-03-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Flo-Sun Agreement did not constitute 'major federal action' requiring an EIS under NEPA, and that entering the agreement was a litigation decision not subject to APA notice-and-comment requirements.
• Farabee v. Rider
  995 F. Supp. 1398· M.D. Fla.· 1998-02-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a sheriff can be liable for negligence in supervising deputies if the failure to train or supervise creates a foreseeable zone of risk, as such acts are operational, not discretionary, and thus not barred by sovereign immunity.
• Floyd v. Heno
  996 F.2d 429· 1st Cir.· 1993-06-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a claim for compensatory relief arising from FDIC's repudiation of a contract is not subject to the administrative claims process under 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d), and thus the district court erred in dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction.
• Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Scimed Life Sys., Inc.
  988 F.2d 1157· Fed. Cir.· 1993-03-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the cross-complaint for laches under Rule 12(b)(6) because the delay was not demonstrably unreasonable or unexcused, and prejudice was not sufficiently established on the pleadings.
• McCARTNEY v. First City Bank
  970 F.2d 45· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-28 ·cited 2×
  The validity of the underlying debt does not bar an action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and a plaintiff need not prove the debt is void or voidable to state a claim. The court also found the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts for claims under § 1983 and the Decla
• Hoover v. Langston Equip. Assocs., Inc.
  958 F.2d 742· 6th Cir.· 1992-03-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint as time-barred and for failure to plead fraud with particularity, and did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend.
• 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
• Wang v. United States
  947 F.2d 1400· 9th Cir.· 1991-10-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the exclusion of the Wangs from the evidentiary hearing on Horio's certification was not harmless error, requiring a new hearing for the state law claims, but affirmed the dismissal of the constitutional claims.
• 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.
• Hughes v. Joliet Corr. Ctr.
  931 F.2d 425· 7th Cir.· 1991-04-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district judge should have considered the plaintiff's request for appointed counsel, as the case presented complex legal and procedural issues that a layperson might not navigate effectively, especially after the defendants moved for summary judgment.
• McHENRY v. Utah Valley Hosp.
  927 F.2d 1125· 10th Cir.· 1991-03-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions.
• Oatess v. Sobolevitch
  914 F.2d 428· 3d Cir.· 1990-09-19 ·cited 2×
  A district court may dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint for failure to state a claim prior to service of process.
• First Nat'l Bank OF Camden v. Tracor, Inc.
  851 F.2d 212· 8th Cir.· 1988-07-06 ·cited 2×
  A parent corporation's immunity from tort liability to its subsidiary's employees does not automatically extend from the subsidiary, and the parent can be liable for its own independent negligence if it undertakes affirmative action.
• DiMELLA v. Gray Lines OF Boston, Inc.
  836 F.2d 718· 1st Cir.· 1988-01-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's claim based on the Massachusetts recreational use statute, as the statute was an affirmative defense improperly raised on a motion to dismiss and factual issues remained.
• Laborers Local 938 Joint Health & Welf. Tr. Fund v. B.R. Starnes Co. of Fla.
  658 F. Supp. 305· S.D. Fla.· 1986-01-22 ·cited 2×
  Contractors and their sureties, who are not signatories to a collective bargaining agreement, are not considered 'employers' under ERISA, and therefore, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over claims seeking contributions to employee benefit funds.
• DiPERRI v. Fed. Aviation Admin.
  671 F.2d 54· 1st Cir.· 1982-02-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that plaintiffs' claims regarding aircraft noise did not state a cause of action under the Federal Aviation Act, but their claim regarding unsafe flight patterns over an oil tank farm did survive a motion to dismiss.
• Hirrill v. Merriweather
  629 F.2d 490· 8th Cir.· 1980-01-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's termination claim was barred by res judicata, and while the pension claim's res judicata status was unclear, it was ultimately without merit and thus properly dismissed.
• Wooten v. Sgt. Garland Shook
  527 F.2d 976· 4th Cir.· 1975-09-16 ·cited 2×
  In one case, summary judgment for the defendant was affirmed because no genuine issue of material fact existed. In the other case, dismissal of a pro se prisoner's complaint for failure to state a claim was reversed because the allegations, though vague, were sufficient to warran
• Hart v. Zimmerman Holdings Grp., Inc.
  268 F. Supp. 705· S.D. Fla.· 2016-01-29 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to show good cause for the untimely service of process and that the court would not exercise its discretion to extend the time for service.
• Andersen v. Smithfield Foods, Inc.
  209 F. Supp. 2d 1278· M.D. Fla.· 2002-06-24 ·cited 1×
  The court held that sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were warranted against plaintiffs' counsel for filing a frivolous second amended complaint without reasonable inquiry.