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

• Barnes v. Sam R. Lehman, M.D.
  861 F.2d 1383· 5th Cir.· 1988-12-28 ·cited 6×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  The court held that the termination of workers' compensation benefits by a private insurer, even if based on a doctor's opinion and governed by state statutes, does not constitute state action for purposes of a § 1983 claim unless there is a sufficiently close nexus between the s
• Johansen v. The City OF Bartlesville
  862 F.2d 1423· 10th Cir.· 1988-12-09 ·cited 6×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Standard
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief under § 1983 were moot, and their claims for punitive damages and under § 1985 were insufficient or withdrawn, warranting dismissal.
• Palmer v. Tracor, Inc.
  856 F.2d 1131· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-12 ·cited 6×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) Dismissal Standard
  The court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged parent company liability for negligence and that the grant of summary judgment was premature without adequate discovery.
• AETNA Life Ins. Co. v. Alla Med. Servs., Inc.
  855 F.2d 1470· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-02 ·cited 6×
  An order imposing sanctions solely on a non-party attorney is immediately appealable, and the court remanded the case for reconsideration of the sanctions, finding the district court's stated reasons for imposing them were erroneous.
• Liles v. Reagan
  804 F.2d 493· 8th Cir.· 1986-11-04 ·cited 6×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  A state court judge is entitled to absolute immunity from civil damages actions for judicial acts performed within their jurisdiction, even if those acts are later found to be erroneous or in excess of jurisdiction.
• Angel v. City OF Fairfield
  793 F.2d 737· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Angel's complaint failed to state a cause of action under section 1983 because it did not allege a constitutional violation resulting from the city's failure to train election officials or from the allowance of non-resident votes.
• Hunter v. Stephenson Roofing, Inc.
  790 F.2d 472· 6th Cir.· 1986-05-07 ·cited 6×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The ninety-day period for filing a Title VII suit begins to run when the EEOC mails the right-to-sue notice to the claimant's last known address, even if the claimant does not actually receive it, provided the claimant failed to notify the EEOC of an address change.
• Sullivan v. United States
  788 F.2d 813· 1st Cir.· 1986-04-18 ·cited 6×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  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.
• Rochester Harris v. Johnson
  784 F.2d 222· 6th Cir.· 1986-02-24 ·cited 6×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Standard
  A district court must explicitly state it is invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and dismissing a complaint as frivolous when ordering a sua sponte dismissal under that statute.
• C.M. Flowers v. Cont'l Grain Co.
  775 F.2d 1051· 8th Cir.· 1985-10-30 ·cited 6×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  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.
• Quilici v. Second Amendment Found.
  769 F.2d 414· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-30 ·cited 6×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the statements in the newsletter were expressions of opinion and not libelous per se, thus the district court properly granted the motion to dismiss.
• Nestor Ayala Serrano v. Torres
  764 F.2d 47· 1st Cir.· 1985-06-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the amended complaint stated a valid claim against the prison guard, but the original complaint failed to state a claim against other defendants.
• Meyer v. Oppenheimer Mgmt. Corp.
  764 F.2d 76· 2d Cir.· 1985-05-30 ·cited 6×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
• Elfriede Mayer v. OIL Field Sys. Corp.
  721 F.2d 59· 2d Cir.· 1983-10-31 ·cited 6×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  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.
• Henry C. Beck Co. v. Fort Wayne Structural Steel Co.
  701 F.2d 1221· 7th Cir.· 1983-03-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that neither the statute of frauds nor the exclusive remedy provision of the Indiana Workmen's Compensation Act barred an action for indemnification based on an express oral contract.
• Davis v. Ohio Barge Line, Inc.
  697 F.2d 549· 3d Cir.· 1983-01-10 ·cited 6×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  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×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  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.
• Jerold B. Smith & The Cardinal Corp. v. Mossinghoff
  671 F.2d 533· D.C. Cir.· 1982-01-22 ·cited 6×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the Commissioner's determination that the delay in prosecuting the patent application was not unavoidable was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
• Howard Routh & Sons v. United States
  668 F.2d 454· 10th Cir.· 1981-12-18 ·cited 6×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  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.
• Leone v. The AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  599 F.2d 566· 3d Cir.· 1979-06-08 ·cited 6×
  An insurer's good faith but erroneous accusation of criminal conduct against an insured, without initiating criminal proceedings, does not toll the suit limitation clause in a fire insurance policy.
• Clagett v. Hutchison
  583 F.2d 1259· 4th Cir.· 1978-09-14 ·cited 6×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the dismissal of the minority shareholders' complaint for failure to state a claim was erroneous because the allegations, when construed favorably to the plaintiffs, sufficiently stated claims for breach of fiduciary duty.
• Dragon v. The United States
  414 F.2d 228· 5th Cir.· 1969-05-29 ·cited 6×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that appointed counsel for a federal prisoner in a collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is not entitled to compensation under the Criminal Justice Act of 1964.
• Brown v. Chicago
  328 F.2d 122· 7th Cir.· 1964-02-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an advertisement published by Union Pacific, detailing the benefits of its proposed merger with Rock Island and the drawbacks of a competing offer, was not an unlawful proxy solicitation under Section 14 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 because its p
• John v. Hon. Phil S. Gibson
  270 F.2d 36· 9th Cir.· 1959-08-26 ·cited 6×·via Rule 12(B)(6)
  The court held that the appeal was frivolous because the issue of judicial immunity is well-established, and thus denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
• Crane Distrib. Co. v. Glenmore Distilleries
  267 F.2d 343· 6th Cir.· 1959-06-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the alleged price-fixing conspiracy falls within the purview of federal antitrust laws, but the complaint lacked sufficient allegations for a monopoly claim.
• Eugen Hirsch v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.
  258 F.2d 44· 2d Cir.· 1958-07-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the defendant's present intent to use the process, made at the time of signing a release, raised a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.
• Garbutt v. Blanding Mines Co.
  141 F.2d 679· 10th Cir.· 1944-03-21 ·cited 6×·via Rule 12(B)(6)
  The court held that the complaint, when viewed favorably, sufficiently stated a claim for breach of contract, particularly regarding pre-assignment failures.
• Disney Enters., Inc. v. Hotfile Corp.
  798 F. Supp. 2d 1303· S.D. Fla.· 2011-07-08 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the defendant's operation of a website facilitating user uploads and downloads of copyrighted material does not constitute direct copyright infringement, but the claims for secondary copyright infringement (inducement, contributory, and vicarious) are sufficie
• Rinker v. Carnival Corp.
  753 F. Supp. 2d 1237· S.D. Fla.· 2010-11-19 ·cited 5×
  The court held that California law does not apply, and dismissed claims for negligence, breach of contract by a third-party beneficiary, and conspiracy due to failure to state a claim or allege causation and agreement.
• Palm Beach Cnty. Env't Coal. v. Florida
  651 F. Supp. 2d 1328· S.D. Fla.· 2009-07-27 ·cited 5×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Failure To State A Claim)
  The court granted motions to dismiss, finding that sovereign immunity barred federal and state claims against state defendants, and that federal defendants were not properly served and failed to provide required notice for certain claims.
• TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. GSM Grp., Inc.
  555 F. Supp. 2d 1331· S.D. Fla.· 2008-05-15 ·cited 5×·via Rule 12(B)(6)
  The court held that the complaint sufficiently stated claims to withstand a motion to dismiss, denying the defendants' motion.
• Super Vision Int'l, Inc. v. Mega Int'l Commercial Bank Co.
  534 F. Supp. 2d 1326· S.D. Fla.· 2008-02-05 ·cited 5×·via Rule 12(B)(6)
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to establish the defendant bank's participation in the operation or management of the alleged RICO enterprise, thus dismissing the RICO claims.
• Lapar v. Potter
  395 F. Supp. 2d 1152· M.D. Fla.· 2005-10-19 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 due to the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine and the exclusivity of the Rehabilitation Act. Rehabilitation Act claims were dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and Florida Civil
• Alphamed Pharms. Corp. v. Arriva Pharms., Inc.
  391 F. Supp. 2d 1148· S.D. Fla.· 2005-01-05 ·cited 5×·via Motion To Dismiss Standard (Rule 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for declaratory relief regarding patent infringement and for false advertising under the Lanham Act, as the defendant's activities were either not imminent or protected by statutory safe harbors.
• Smartt v. First Union Nat'l Bank
  245 F. Supp. 2d 1229· M.D. Fla.· 2003-01-29 ·cited 5×·via Motion To Dismiss Standard (Rule 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and granted the defendants' motion for attorney's fees and costs due to vexatious litigation.
• Silhan v. Allstate Ins.
  236 F. Supp. 2d 1303· N.D. Fla.· 2002-09-30 ·cited 5×·via Rule 12(B)(6)
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for intentional or negligent spoliation of evidence because they did not allege facts demonstrating an intent to disrupt litigation or a duty to preserve evidence.
• Levy v. City of Hollywood
  90 F. Supp. 2d 1344· S.D. Fla.· 2000-03-31 ·cited 5×
  A high-speed police pursuit, without more, does not violate substantive due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and when the sole federal claim is dismissed, remaining state law claims should be remanded.
• Mason v. K Mart Corp.
  1 F. Supp. 2d 1333· M.D. Fla.· 1998-01-30 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently alleged claims for Title VII sex discrimination and retaliation, and that supplemental jurisdiction over the state law battery claim was proper.
• Fla. Coll. of Osteopathic Med., Inc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc.
  982 F. Supp. 862· M.D. Fla.· 1997-11-17 ·cited 5×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the letter of agreement was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds, barring breach of contract and detrimental reliance claims, and that negligent misrepresentation claims were barred by the Economic Loss Rule, but fraudulent inducement claims could proceed
• Variety Child's. Hosp., Inc. v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida
  942 F. Supp. 562· S.D. Fla.· 1996-07-29 ·cited 5×·via Motion To Dismiss Standard (Rule 12(B)(6))
  The court held that Variety's breach of contract claim is an ERISA claim, not preempted, and its promissory estoppel claim is not preempted as it's brought by a third-party provider. Yoder's breach of contract claim is dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead exhaustion,
• Fla. Dept. Ins. v. Debenture Guar
  921 F. Supp. 750· M.D. Fla.· 1996-04-08 ·cited 5×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Failure To State A Claim)
  The court held that the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to plead fraud with particularity and for failure to state a claim was without merit, denying the motion.
• Harvey M. Jasper Ret. Tr. v. Ivax Corp.
  920 F. Supp. 1260· S.D. Fla.· 1995-11-17 ·cited 5×
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the motion for class certification and denying the motion to dismiss.
• Ulric Paul Giddings v. Chandler
  979 F.2d 1104· 5th Cir.· 1992-12-28 ·cited 5×·via Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.
  A criminal alien does not have standing to compel the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to commence deportation proceedings under the Mandamus Act or the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because they do not fall within the 'zone of interest' of the relevant statute.
• Airport Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Prevost Car, Inc.
  788 F. Supp. 1203· S.D. Fla.· 1992-04-03 ·cited 5×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  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.
• Guidry v. Bank OF LaPLACE
  954 F.2d 278· 5th Cir.· 1992-02-25 ·cited 5×·via Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.
  The court held that a bank account is not a RICO enterprise and that the plaintiff's investment scheme did not involve securities. It affirmed dismissal of most state law claims but reversed dismissal of some negligence claims, remanding them without prejudice.
• Brown v. Seebach
  763 F. Supp. 574· S.D. Fla.· 1991-04-12 ·cited 5×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Failure To State A Claim)
  The court held that personal jurisdiction was proper over the defendant driver under Florida's long-arm statute and due process, and that claims for negligent supervision, entrustment, and beneficial ownership were sufficiently pleaded, but claims for imputed parental liability u
• Festa v. Local 3 Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers
  905 F.2d 35· 2d Cir.· 1990-06-04 ·cited 5×·via Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.
  The court held that the dismissal of the union claim with prejudice was improper, and modified the judgment to allow the plaintiff to file an amended complaint against both defendants.
• City OF Bloomington v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  891 F.2d 611· 7th Cir.· 1989-12-06 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the City's nuisance and abnormally dangerous activity claims for failure to assert Monsanto's "authority or actual physical control to direct the use or disposal of its product past the point of sale."
• Carlson v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  883 F.2d 287· 4th Cir.· 1989-08-22 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing claims based on unconscionable warranty limitations solely on the pleadings, but correctly dismissed claims for lost resale value under the implied warranty of merchantability.
• Aldahonda-Rivera v. Parke Davis & Co.
  882 F.2d 590· 1st Cir.· 1989-08-18 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the District Court properly dismissed the plaintiff's complaint as time-barred under Puerto Rico law, and that the statute of limitations was not tolled.