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

• Wilson v. Ake
  354 F. Supp. 2d 1298· M.D. Fla.· 2005-01-19 ·cited 1×·via Motion To Dismiss Standard (Rule 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Florida Statutes § 741.212 are constitutional, and that there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage under the Constitution.
• Sounds of Serv. Radio v. Islamorada
  344 F. Supp. 2d 1376· S.D. Fla.· 2004-11-05 ·cited 1×·via Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.
  Sounds of Service Radio sought a preliminary injunction to stop state court proceedings between itself and G & G Trading, Inc., but the federal district court denied the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice because the federal court lacked authority under the Anti-Injunct
• Altadis USA, Inc. v. NPR, Inc.
  308 F. Supp. 2d 1304· M.D. Fla.· 2004-02-05 ·cited 1×·via Rule 12(B)(6)
  The court granted Key Bank's motion to dismiss, finding that Florida law did not apply and that the plaintiffs' claims under Ohio law were insufficiently pleaded.
• Andersen v. Smithfield Foods, Inc.
  209 F. Supp. 2d 1278· M.D. Fla.· 2002-06-24 ·cited 1×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  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.
• Andersen v. Smithfield Foods, Inc.
  207 F. Supp. 2d 1358· M.D. Fla.· 2002-06-24 ·cited 1×
  Plaintiffs brought a civil RICO action against Smithfield Foods and its CEO, alleging that defendants engaged in mail fraud, wire fraud, extortion, and Travel Act violations as predicate acts constituting a pattern of racketeering activity. The court granted defendants' motion to
• In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation
  160 F. Supp. 2d 1365· S.D. Fla.· 2001-07-25 ·cited 1×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Standard
  The court held that indirect purchasers cannot pursue federal antitrust claims due to the Illinois Brick doctrine, but may pursue state antitrust claims if they have standing and the relevant state law permits such suits.
• Fabricant v. Roebuck
  89 F. Supp. 978· S.D. Fla.· 2001-05-21 ·cited 1×
  The court held that counterclaims against class members who are in default or who received benefits in excess of premiums paid are legally insufficient because these individuals are excluded from the class definition. The court also held that a counterclaim for unjust enrichment
• Bridges v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co.
  121 F. Supp. 2d 1369· M.D. Fla.· 2000-10-20 ·cited 1×·via Motion To Dismiss Standard (Rule 12(B)(6))
  Florida's bad faith statute, Fla. Stat. § 624.155, is preempted by ERISA because it does not fall within ERISA's savings clause, and therefore, a claim under this statute fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Digit. Lightwave, Inc.
  986 F. Supp. 2d 982· M.D. Fla.· 2000-09-07 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the SEC sufficiently pleaded fraud and fraudulent pledge of stock with particularity under Rule 9(b) and stated claims under federal securities laws, and that a pledge of stock for a loan constitutes a sale or offer under those laws.
• Sherleigh Assocs., LLC v. Windmere-Durable Holdings, Inc.
  178 F. Supp. 2d 1255· S.D. Fla.· 2000-06-08 ·cited 1×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Standard
  The court denied the Windmere Defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety and granted Montgomery's motion to dismiss Count IV, denying it in all other respects.
• Mallo v. Pub. Health Tr. of Dade Cnty.
  88 F. Supp. 2d 1376· S.D. Fla.· 2000-03-31 ·cited 1×·via Rule 12(B)(6)
  The court held that the defendant had not met its burden under the first prong of the § 1983 test, as there was no express indication that Congress intended to foreclose private enforcement of the Medicaid balance billing provision.
• Aristil v. Hous. Auth. of City of Tampa
  54 F. Supp. 2d 1289· M.D. Fla.· 1999-06-08 ·cited 1×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) Dismissal Standard
  The court held that plaintiffs stated a claim under § 1983 for violations of the USHA and LPPPA, but lacked standing as third-party beneficiaries to sue under the ACC.
• Hornfeld v. City of N. Miami Beach
  29 F. Supp. 2d 1357· S.D. Fla.· 1998-11-09 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) does not preclude a plaintiff from bringing a concurrent claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Diversified Servs., Inc. v. Simkins Indus., Inc.
  974 F. Supp. 1448· S.D. Fla.· 1997-03-26 ·cited 1×·via Motion To Dismiss Standard (Rule 12(B)(6))
  The court affirmed the magistrate judge's recommendation, granting summary judgment for the plaintiff on Count VII, denying the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, and dismissing state law claims (Counts III-VI) for lack of supplemental jurisdiction, while denying di
• Harmony Homes v. US
  890 F. Supp. 1032· M.D. Fla.· 1995-07-03 ·cited 1×·via Rule 12(B)(6)
  The court held that the notice of removal was timely filed because a basis for federal question jurisdiction did not appear until the plaintiff filed its second amended complaint, and the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was denied as the statute of limitations defe
• In re Cascade Int'l Sec. Litig.
  894 F. Supp. 437· S.D. Fla.· 1995-06-27 ·cited 1×·via Motion To Dismiss Standard (Rule 12(B)(6))
  The court held that a defendant accountant's failure to publicly correct a company's potentially misleading SEC filing, absent a duty to disclose, does not constitute a primary violation of Section 10(b) after the Supreme Court's decision in Central Bank.
• Ware v. Barr
  883 F. Supp. 654· M.D. Fla.· 1995-04-14 ·cited 1×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that Count II must be dismissed for failure to allege discriminatory animus, but Count III survives summary judgment due to genuine issues of material fact regarding qualified immunity.
• McMurtry v. City of Largo
  837 F. Supp. 1155· M.D. Fla.· 1993-11-10 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act does not provide a private cause of action, and the plaintiff failed to exhaust state remedies for his § 1983 claim.
• Hodges v. Gellerstedt
  833 F. Supp. 898· M.D. Fla.· 1993-10-14 ·cited 1×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently alleged claims for quid pro quo and hostile work environment sexual harassment under Title VII, and therefore denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and motion for a more definite statement.
• Growth Horizons, Inc. v. Del. Cnty.
  983 F.2d 1277· 3d Cir.· 1993-01-21 ·cited 1×
  A district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the legal insufficiency of a federal claim is improper; such claims should be decided on the merits. A public agency's refusal to pay for housing, even if influenced by bias, does not violate the Fair H
• Chaparro-Febus v. Int'l Longshoremen Ass'n
  983 F.2d 325· 1st Cir.· 1992-12-31 ·cited 1×
  The court held that PRMSA, as a political subdivision of Puerto Rico, is excluded from the definition of 'employer' under the LMRA, thus barring subject matter jurisdiction. It also held that the union did not breach its duty of fair representation by agreeing to seniority change
• Hrubec v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.
  981 F.2d 962· 7th Cir.· 1992-12-14 ·cited 1×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  The court held that the complaint stated a claim under 26 U.S.C. § 7431(a)(2) and that plaintiffs should have been allowed to amend their complaint.
• Stewart v. Jackson & Nash
  976 F.2d 86· 2d Cir.· 1992-09-23 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff stated a claim for fraudulent inducement based on misrepresentations of present fact, but not for negligent misrepresentation as no fiduciary duty was established.
• Carey F. Sharp v. United Airlines, Inc.
  967 F.2d 404· 10th Cir.· 1992-06-17 ·cited 1×
  Former airline employees lack standing to bring federal and state antitrust claims because their alleged injuries are indirect, speculative, and not the type intended to be redressed by antitrust laws. State law claims for breach of contract and tortious interference also fail.
• Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Jet Stream, Ltd.
  790 F. Supp. 1130· M.D. Fla.· 1992-04-08 ·cited 1×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  The court held that the defendants' counterclaims and affirmative defenses based on an alleged oral joint venture agreement were barred by the D'Oench doctrine and the federal holder in due course doctrine, as these agreements were not reflected in the bank's official records.
• Hous. Auth. OF THE KAW Tribe OF Indians OF Okla. v. City OF Ponca City
  952 F.2d 1183· 10th Cir.· 1991-12-19 ·cited 1×
  A political subdivision of a state, including an Indian housing authority created under state law, cannot bring suit against another political subdivision under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1983 because it lacks federal constitutional rights. However, such an authority may have standing und
• 701 NPB Assocs. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  779 F. Supp. 1336· S.D. Fla.· 1991-12-02 ·cited 1×·via Motion To Dismiss Standard (Rule 12(B)(6))
  The court denied the FDIC's motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently stated claims for declaratory judgment regarding the timeliness of the lease repudiation, for arbitrary repudiation, for damages, and for a Fifth Amendment taking.
• Henry v. Robey-Barber Ins. Servs. Corp.
  777 F. Supp. 1554· M.D. Fla.· 1991-10-17 ·cited 1×·via Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint, as pled, failed to establish that the insurance benefits were not provided under an employee benefit plan, and therefore the causes of action were preempted by ERISA.
• McKenzie v. Doctors' Hosp. of Hollywood, Inc.
  765 F. Supp. 1504· S.D. Fla.· 1991-06-24 ·cited 1×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for federal constitutional violations and dismissed the pendant state law claims.
• The Ohio Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. United States
  922 F.2d 320· 6th Cir.· 1990-12-20 ·cited 1×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  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.
• Neighborhood Action Coal. v. City OF Canton
  882 F.2d 1012· 6th Cir.· 1989-07-27 ·cited 1×
  The court held that plaintiffs need not exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a Title VI claim and that municipalities can be sued under Section 1983. The court also found the plaintiff association had standing for injunctive relief but not damages.
• Martin v. Sgt. Earl Kelley
  803 F.2d 236· 6th Cir.· 1986-10-08 ·cited 1×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  Prison officials may reject inmate mail that could incite violence, and due process requires notice to the sender, but not necessarily through a formal regulation.
• United States v. Olavarrieta
  632 F. Supp. 895· S.D. Fla.· 1986-04-09 ·cited 1×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the University of Florida and the Board of Regents were improperly sued and dismissed the third-party complaints, and granted summary judgment for the government against the student for repayment of defaulted loans.
• Sizemore v. United States
  651 F. Supp. 463· M.D. Fla.· 1985-12-10 ·cited 1×
  Claims against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act are barred by the discretionary function exception when based on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulatory activities.
• African People's Educ. & Def. Fund, Inc. v. Pinellas Cnty.
  11th Cir.· 2026-07-29 ·via Motion To Dismiss Standard (Rule 12(B)(6))
  First Amendment retaliation claims brought by applicants for government grants and subsidies are not barred by Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr, which reserved judgment on new applicants; instead, grant applicants receive the same First Amendment protection as ordinary cit
• Northfield Ins. Co. v. N. Brook Indus., Inc.
  11th Cir.· 2026-05-22
  An order dismissing an insurer's complaint for a declaratory judgment that it owes no duty to defend is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because it does not have the practical effect of an injunction. The order must be a clear directive, enforceable through
• MacLaughlan
  Del. Ch.· 2026-02-26
  Todd MacLaughlan founded Profounda, Inc. and negotiated a personal profit-sharing arrangement for a profitable drug distribution contract, but Morris Goodman (via his affiliate Parent) later asserted that those profits belonged to the corporation, triggering MacLaughlan's derivat
• Genesis CMG Holdings LLC v. Yancey
  Del. Ch.· 2026-02-26 ·via Rule 12(B)(6) Standard
  Genesis CMG Holdings LLC and Converze Media Group LLC sued former executives Phillip Yancey and Jennifer Miller-Baten for allegedly breaching restrictive covenants and unit purchase agreements. The Delaware Court of Chancery granted defendants' motion to dismiss because the non-c
• Sheldon K. Rennie Judge Leonard L. Williams Just. Ctr.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2026-02-26 ·via Rule 12(B)(6)
  Mogo Inc. sued Cricket Media, Inc. for breach of a senior secured convertible promissory note and related purchase agreement involving a $1.78 million loan. The court denied Cricket's motion to dismiss, holding that Mogo adequately pleaded a breach of contract claim based on Cric
• Volpi
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2026-02-18 ·via Rule 12(B)(6)
  A passenger injured in a boating accident brought a declaratory judgment action against the boat rental operator's liability insurer, seeking to compel coverage. The court denied the insurer's motion to dismiss, finding that the passenger sufficiently pleaded he was either an int
• Lakeview Loan Servicing LLC v. Frederick
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2026-02-18 ·via Rule 12(B)(6) Standard
  In a mortgage foreclosure action, the Delaware Superior Court denied defendant Carl Frederick's motion to dismiss and both defendants' motions to strike Plaintiff Lakeview Loan Servicing's response. The court held that the plaintiff has standing to pursue the scire facias sur mor
• Frederic P. McCann v. CP Direct LLC
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2026-02-12 ·via Motion To Dismiss Standard (Rule 12(B)(6))
  Frederic McCann, former CFO of CP Direct LLC, sued for wrongful termination and breach of his employment agreement, bringing five counts including breach of contract, implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, tortious interference, and intentional infl
• Zambrano v. Wanderu, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2026-02-05
  The court held that Wanderu is not a reseller under Fla. Stat. § 817.36, and therefore, the statute's fee limitation does not apply to Wanderu's service fees.
• NVR, Inc. v. Carter Farm, LLC
  Del. Ch.· 2026-02-04
  NVR, Inc. sought to enforce lot purchase agreements (LPAs) executed in 2009 with Carter Farm, LLC to purchase and develop residential lots on 415 acres in Delaware. The court dismissed the complaint, finding all claims time-barred by either the statute of limitations (Count IV) o
• Guerrero v. Magnus Sports, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2026-02-04
  Jesse Guerrero sued Barry Praver and Scott Shapiro, sports agents, alleging they breached an oral agreement to compensate him for facilitating a professional baseball player's representation by the defendants. The court dismissed the case with prejudice, finding that Guerrero fai
• Raymond v. LSM Trading USA, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2026-02-03
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish personal jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction, warranting dismissal of the amended complaint.
• Gen. Zantac Litig. In re: Zantac (Ranitidine Litig. C.A. No.: N22C-09-101 ZAN
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2026-01-29 ·via Rule 12(B)(6)
  The Delaware Superior Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss 277 Zantac cases on statute of limitations grounds, holding that Delaware's two-year limitations period applies under the borrowing statute and that plaintiffs had inquiry notice of their claims as of the FDA's Apr
• GOT Distrib. SPV II, LLC v. Doubleradius, Inc.
  Del. Ch.· 2026-01-28 ·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  GOT Distribution SPV II, LLC sued an ESOP trust, its trustee, and the former CEO of DoubleRadius, Inc. for fraud and breach of contract relating to the sale of the company. The Delaware Court of Chancery denied the trust's motion to dismiss, holding that ERISA authorizes suits ag
• McKenzie v. BDO USA, P.C.
  Del. Ch.· 2026-01-26 ·via Motion To Dismiss Standard (Rule 12(B)(6))
  A former BDO partner sued the firm and its board members after they reclassified his equity interest from variable to fixed shares upon learning of his resignation, reducing his payout. The Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed all claims, holding that the partnership agreement's
• Murphy v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Gov't Auth.
  S.D. Fla.· 2026-01-26 ·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court granted the motions to dismiss, finding the federal takings claim failed for not alleging public use and dismissing state law claims for lack of jurisdiction.