Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss

1,198 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,504 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Nunley v. M/V Dauntless Colocotronis
  863 F.2d 1190· 5th Cir.· 1989-01-23 ·cited 10×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding Combi Line not negligent and denying Captain Nunley's salvage claim, as Nunley's actions were part of his contractual duties with ChemLink.
• Frazier v. Coughlin
  850 F.2d 129· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-29 ·cited 10×·via Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to consider all of the plaintiff's claims when dismissing the complaint, and that claims based on rules not properly filed may be valid if the plaintiff lacked notice.
• 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×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  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.
• Huxall v. First State Bank
  842 F.2d 249· 10th Cir.· 1988-03-24 ·cited 10×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that a plaintiff alleging property deprivation without due process must demonstrate they were denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard or avail themselves of available state remedies.
• In re Asbestos Litigation
  679 F. Supp. 1096· S.D. Fla.· 1987-07-13 ·cited 10×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) Dismissal Standard
  The court held that plaintiffs' complaints sufficiently stated claims for negligence, strict liability, breach of implied warranty, conspiracy, and punitive damages, and that personal jurisdiction was properly asserted under Florida's long-arm statute.
• Eades v. Thompson
  823 F.2d 1055· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff stated a claim under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, but not under the Fourteenth Amendment for due process or equal protection. The court also found that denying the plaintiff's third request to amend h
• Cowan v. Corley
  814 F.2d 223· 5th Cir.· 1987-04-13 ·cited 10×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations sufficiently stated claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act, RICO, and § 1983, and that dismissal was premature.
• Collins v. Cnty. OF Kendall
  807 F.2d 95· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-03 ·cited 10×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to support an inference of bad faith prosecution, thus the district court properly abstained under the Younger doctrine.
• Allen v. Lanson Newsome
  795 F.2d 934· 11th Cir.· 1986-08-04 ·cited 10×·via Rule 12(B)(6)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the habeas corpus petition as successive and an abuse of the writ without an evidentiary hearing.
• Holloway v. A.L. Lockhart
  792 F.2d 760· 8th Cir.· 1986-06-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the inmate's pro se complaint for failure to state a claim, as it alleged a deprivation of property without due process.
• Misco, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp. & Alside
  784 F.2d 198· 6th Cir.· 1986-02-19 ·cited 10×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed federal antitrust claims and the claim for wrongful inducement to breach a contract, but erred in its disposition of the breach of contract claim, which is reversed and remanded.
• Smith v. Winter
  782 F.2d 508· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-12 ·cited 10×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  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.
• Brown v. J.I. Case Co.
  756 F.2d 48· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-17 ·cited 10×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  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.
• Grunnet v. United States
  730 F.2d 573· 9th Cir.· 1984-04-10 ·cited 10×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
• Cnty. OF Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co.
  728 F.2d 52· 2d Cir.· 1984-01-25 ·cited 10×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Failure To State A Claim)
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint because the ratepayers' claims were preempted by federal law regarding nuclear safety and operation, and by state law regarding utility ratemaking.
• JM Mech. Corp. v. The United States
  716 F.2d 190· 3d Cir.· 1983-09-02 ·cited 10×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  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.
• Sherrard v. Owens
  644 F.2d 542· 6th Cir.· 1981-03-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' expectation of continuing as foster parents did not rise to the level of a constitutionally protected liberty interest under the given circumstances.
• Hansbury v. The Regents OF the Univ. OF Cal.
  596 F.2d 944· 10th Cir.· 1979-04-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the claims of post-layoff continuing discrimination under Title VII and Section 1983, as these claims were adequately alleged and potentially viable within the relevant time periods.
• Abram Bryant v. Cal. Brewers Ass'n
  585 F.2d 421· 9th Cir.· 1978-11-03 ·cited 10×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Failure To State A Claim)
• Joyce v. Joyce Beverages, Inc.
  571 F.2d 703· 2d Cir.· 1978-01-30 ·cited 10×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Failure To State A Claim)
  The court held that the omissions and representations in the information statement were not sufficiently material to support a 10b-5 claim.
• Irwin F. Gellman v. State OF Md.
  538 F.2d 603· 4th Cir.· 1976-06-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that consolidating a preliminary injunction hearing with a trial on the merits, and treating a motion to dismiss as a summary judgment motion, without clear and unambiguous notice to the parties, violates due process and Rule 65(a)(2).
• Long Island Lighting Co. v. Standard OIL Co. OF Cal.
  521 F.2d 1269· 2d Cir.· 1975-08-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that plaintiffs LILCO and CON EDISON lacked standing to sue under the first count because they were not in the 'target area' of the alleged group boycott, but LILCO had standing under the second count for alleged monopolization of the East Coast market.
• Patterson v. Ellis C. MacDOUGALL
  506 F.2d 1· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-08 ·cited 10×·via Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the pro se complaint sua sponte, as it stated a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that dismissal for failure to join an indispensable party under Rule 19(b) was improper.
• Wren v. Carlson
  506 F.2d 131· D.C. Cir.· 1974-09-12 ·cited 10×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court concurred in the result that the case should be dismissed as frivolous and potentially transferred to the Northern District of Georgia.
• Sarter v. Mays
  491 F.2d 675· 5th Cir.· 1974-03-25 ·cited 10×·via Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.
  The court held that the district court improperly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under the Consumer Credit Protection Act without sufficient factual development.
• Bright v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
  463 F.2d 240· 9th Cir.· 1972-06-05 ·cited 10×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  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.
• Invs. Syndicate OF Am., Inc. v. The City OF Indian Rocks Beach
  434 F.2d 871· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-12 ·cited 10×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Failure To State A Claim)
  A city's motion to dismiss a bondholder's complaint for failure to state a claim was improperly granted, as the complaint sufficiently alleged breach of contract, breach of trust, and equitable estoppel.
• Ruderer v. Meyer
  413 F.2d 175· 8th Cir.· 1969-07-07 ·cited 10×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  Statements made by federal officials within the outer perimeter of their official duties are absolutely privileged from defamation suits, even if malice is alleged.
• Schmidt v. United States
  198 F.2d 32· 7th Cir.· 1952-07-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Securities and Exchange Commission's actions, as alleged, fell within the scope of its discretionary functions under the Securities Exchange Act, and thus were barred from suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Florasynth Labs., Inc. v. Goldberg
  191 F.2d 877· 7th Cir.· 1951-10-30 ·cited 10×·via Rule 12(B)(6)
  The court held that a prior judgment dismissing a complaint on the merits, even without an appeal, is binding on the parties in a subsequent action between them concerning the same underlying factual issues, even if the second action alleges a new cause of action based on subsequ
• Naples Ctr. for Dermatology & Cosm. Surgery, PA v. Trisan
  Del. Ch.· 2025-05-02 ·cited 9×
  The Court of Chancery granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff waived the exclusive jurisdiction provision in the employment agreement. The court determined that the waiver occurred both expressly through an email exchange and implicitly by the plaint
• Colon v. Twitter, Inc.
  14 F.4th 1213· 11th Cir.· 2021-09-27 ·cited 9×·via Rule 12(B)(6)
  The court held that the Pulse nightclub shooting did not qualify as an 'act of international terrorism' under the Anti-Terrorism Act because it did not transcend national boundaries, and thus the social media companies could not be liable for aiding and abetting. The court also f
• In re Banco Santander Securities-Optimal Litigation
  732 F. Supp. 2d 1305· S.D. Fla.· 2010-07-30 ·cited 9×·via Rule 12(B)(6)
  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.
• Apr Energy, LLC v. Pakistan Power Res., LLC
  653 F. Supp. 2d 1227· M.D. Fla.· 2009-08-28 ·cited 9×·via Motion To Dismiss Standard (Rule 12(B)(6))
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying the motion to dismiss Counts I, II, and III, and granting the motion to dismiss Counts VI and VII.
• Durso v. Summer Brook Preserve Homeowners Ass'n
  641 F. Supp. 2d 1256· M.D. Fla.· 2008-06-23 ·cited 9×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Failure To State A Claim)
  The court granted motions to strike a pleading that did not comply with court orders and dismissed claims for violation of the FDCPA, RICO, and a criminal statute lacking civil liability.
• Shenandoah Chiropractic v. Nat'l Specialty Ins.
  526 F. Supp. 2d 1283· S.D. Fla.· 2007-12-03 ·cited 9×
  The court held that declaratory relief is not appropriate for determining the reasonableness of an insurer's reimbursement method, and that a class-wide demand letter does not satisfy the statutory pre-suit notice requirement under the Florida PIP statute.
• Colomar v. Mercy Hosp., Inc.
  461 F. Supp. 2d 1265· S.D. Fla.· 2006-11-17 ·cited 9×
  The court held that allegations of unreasonable pricing, supported by market analysis, differential pricing, and internal cost structure, are sufficient to state claims for breach of contract and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
• Druskin v. Answerthink, Inc.
  299 F. Supp. 2d 1307· S.D. Fla.· 2004-01-05 ·cited 9×
  The court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• Ellen S. v. Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam'rs
  859 F. Supp. 1489· S.D. Fla.· 1994-08-01 ·cited 9×·via Rule 12(B)(6)
  The court held that the Florida Board of Bar Examiners' inquiries into applicants' mental health treatment histories may violate Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and that the court has jurisdiction to hear the challenge to these general rules.
• Allen v. Westpoint-Pepperell
  945 F.2d 40· 2d Cir.· 1991-09-11 ·cited 9×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint adequately stated a claim for rescission of the release agreement based on allegations of fraud and mutual mistake, thus surviving a motion to dismiss.
• Green v. USF & G Corp.
  772 F. Supp. 1258· S.D. Fla.· 1991-07-23 ·cited 9×·via Rule 12(B)(6)
  The court held that the defendants' telephone calls to Florida did not establish sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy due process, and therefore personal jurisdiction could not be exercised.
• Rothner v. City OF Chicago
  929 F.2d 297· 7th Cir.· 1991-04-01 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the City of Chicago ordinance prohibiting minors from playing video games during school hours is a valid time, place, and manner restriction on speech, serving a legitimate governmental interest in preventing truancy and promoting education.
• Jennings v. Emry
  910 F.2d 1434· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-16 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the appellants' complaint failed to adequately state a claim under RICO due to its prolixity, lack of clarity, and failure to allege a pattern of racketeering activity or a RICO enterprise.
• The Cnty. OF Oakland v. The City OF Detroit
  866 F.2d 839· 6th Cir.· 1989-01-27 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the plaintiff counties had standing to sue for antitrust and RICO violations because they were direct purchasers of sewerage services and suffered injury in fact, even if they passed on the costs to their own customers.
• Garshman v. Universal Res. Holding Inc.
  824 F.2d 223· 3d Cir.· 1987-07-09 ·cited 9×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court affirmed the dismissal of antitrust and state law claims, finding that the allegations did not establish monopoly power, unlawful restraint of trade, or actionable duress or tortious interference.
• Jona Goldschmidt v. Patchett
  686 F.2d 582· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-16 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the complaint failed to allege injury flowing from a constitutional deprivation, making dismissal proper.
• Gasper v. La. Stadium & Exposition Dist.
  577 F.2d 897· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-01 ·cited 9×
  The court held that there is no constitutional right to prevent others from smoking in a public stadium, and thus the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
  34 F.4th 1260· 11th Cir.· 2022-05-24 ·cited 8×
  Constance Daniels sued mortgage servicer Select Portfolio Servicing over monthly mortgage statements that she claimed contained inaccurate information and violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Florida's consumer collection law. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the dist
• Gonzalez v. Old Lisbon Rest. & BAR LLC
  820 F. Supp. 2d 1365· S.D. Fla.· 2011-10-25 ·cited 8×
  A plaintiff must plead specific facts to establish a joint enterprise theory under the FLSA, not just legal conclusions or recitations of the test's elements.