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

• Partridge v. TWO Unknown Police Officers OF the City OF Houston
  791 F.2d 1182· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-13 ·cited 69×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The dissenting judge believes the majority opinion incorrectly interprets precedent and collapses the distinction between negligence and wanton conduct.
• Amfac Mortg. Corp. v. Ariz. Mall OF Tempe, Inc.
  583 F.2d 426· 9th Cir.· 1978-10-03 ·cited 69×
  The court held that a promissory note given in a commercial construction financing transaction is not a security under federal or Arizona securities laws, and a surety on a construction bond does not owe an implied tort duty of good faith to the obligee beyond the express terms o
• Hamm v. Members OF the Bd. OF Regents OF the State OF Fla.
  708 F.2d 647· 11th Cir.· 1983-07-01 ·cited 68×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court affirmed the dismissals of the plaintiff's claims, finding no error in the district court's rulings on procedural grounds, the scope of EEOC charges, or the application of legal standards for retaliation and discrimination.
• Virgilio v. The Ryland Grp., Inc.
  680 F.3d 1329· 11th Cir.· 2012-05-18 ·cited 66×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  Luis and Norma Virgilio brought a class action against Ryland Group and related development entities for failing to disclose that their homes in the Newport subdivision of Vista Lakes were adjacent to Pinecastle, a former World War II bombing range laden with unexploded ordnance,
• Marie Ellsworth & Paul Ellsworth v. City OF Racine
  774 F.2d 182· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-23 ·cited 66×
  The plaintiff's admission that she told the officer it was unnecessary for him to stay precludes recovery on her Section 1983 claim.
• Calderone Enters. Corp. v. United Artists Theatre Cir., Inc.
  454 F.2d 1292· 2d Cir.· 1971-12-28 ·cited 66×
  A non-operating landlord whose tenant is involved in an antitrust conspiracy does not have standing under § 4 of the Clayton Act to sue for treble damages if the conspiracy was not directly aimed at the landlord.
• Rodgers v. Lincoln Towing Serv., Inc.
  771 F.2d 194· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-15 ·cited 65×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of all claims and the assessment of Rule 11 sanctions, finding the plaintiff's allegations failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that the attorneys' conduct warranted sanctions.
• Reuber v. United States
  750 F.2d 1039· D.C. Cir.· 1984-12-07 ·cited 65×
  A private employer acting as an ad hoc federal agent, instigated by federal officials to violate constitutional rights, can be subject to Bivens liability and equitable relief like reinstatement, even if damages are available.
• Life Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. Reichardt
  591 F.2d 499· 9th Cir.· 1979-01-11 ·cited 65×
  The court held that the Insurance Commissioner's approval of discriminatory insurance policy forms did not constitute sufficient state action for a § 1983 claim, and that the § 1985(3) claim against the insurers was properly allowed to proceed.
• Burch v. Apalachee Cmty. Mental Health Servs., Inc.
  840 F.2d 797· 11th Cir.· 1988-03-18 ·cited 63×
  The concurring judge agrees with the dissent's reasoning, implying disagreement with the majority's disposition.
• Alfonse Reichenberger v. Rev. Richard Pritchard
  660 F.2d 280· 7th Cir.· 1981-09-18 ·cited 63×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 because they did not allege an actual deprivation of constitutional rights or injury, and affirmed the award of attorney's fees to the defendants.
• Battle v. Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
  493 F.2d 39· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-25 ·cited 62×·via Motion To Dismiss Standard (Rule 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the complaint sufficiently stated claims for relief under the Sherman Act and Clayton Act, and thus the district court erred in dismissing the case for failure to state a claim.
• Hargrave v. Shellie McKINNEY
  413 F.2d 320· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-09 ·cited 62×·via Rule 12(B)(6)
  The court should affirm the district court's decision because the equal protection claim is insubstantial and settled by precedent.
• Brandenburg v. Seidel
  859 F.2d 1179· 4th Cir.· 1988-10-11 ·cited 60×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Failure To State A Claim)
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a sufficient causal connection between the alleged RICO predicate acts of the MSSIC defendants and their claimed injuries, thus affirming dismissal of the RICO claim against them.
• Sterling Usher v. City OF LOS Angeles
  828 F.2d 556· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-21 ·cited 60×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Failure To State A Claim)
  The court held that the statute of limitations for a § 1983 claim arising before Wilson v. Garcia should be the earlier of the pre-Wilson period or the post-Wilson period commencing with the decision. It also held that the plaintiff adequately pleaded claims under § 1985 and for
• Seville Indus. Mach. Corp. v. Southmost Mach. Corp.
  742 F.2d 786· 3d Cir.· 1984-09-06 ·cited 60×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the plaintiff adequately pleaded the existence of RICO enterprises and the circumstances of the alleged fraud, and that the interstate transportation allegations were sufficient.
• Yusuf Asad Madyun v. Thompson
  657 F.2d 868· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-06 ·cited 60×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing several claims without proper consideration, particularly concerning pro se plaintiffs' rights in summary judgment proceedings and the application of collateral estoppel and mootness doctrines. Some dismissals were affirm
• Wisniewski v. Johns-Manville Corp.
  759 F.2d 271· 3d Cir.· 1985-04-11 ·cited 58×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  The court held that the defendants' conduct did not rise to the level of outrageousness required for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Pennsylvania law.
• Debora D. Gordon v. Nat'l Youth Work Alliance
  675 F.2d 356· D.C. Cir.· 1982-04-02 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the 90-day filing period for Title VII claims is not a jurisdictional prerequisite but a requirement subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling, and thus should be addressed under Rule 12(b)(6), not Rule 12(b)(1).
• Harper Plastics, Inc. v. Amoco Chems. Corp.
  657 F.2d 939· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-24 ·cited 57×·via Rule 12(B)(6)
  Res judicata bars a litigant from bringing a contract claim in state court after a federal court dismissed related antitrust claims on the merits, because the litigant split its cause of action by failing to join the contract claim in the federal action.
• Mrs. Cordie Ola Fair v. United States
  234 F.2d 288· 5th Cir.· 1956-05-25 ·cited 57×
  The court held that a complaint alleging negligence by government medical staff in releasing a soldier with known homicidal tendencies, and a failure to warn, stated a claim upon which relief could be granted under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Wells Real Est., Inc. v. Greater Lowell Bd. OF Realtors
  850 F.2d 803· 1st Cir.· 1988-06-23 ·cited 54×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to preserve its arguments regarding jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence, and the nature of the interstate commerce element due to procedural waivers.
• Sherman v. Burke Contracting, Inc.
  891 F.2d 1527· 11th Cir.· 1990-01-16 ·cited 53×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Failure To State A Claim)
  The court held that the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII does not imply a cause of action for money damages against former employers for retaliatory blacklisting.
• Decker v. Massey-Ferguson
  681 F.2d 111· 2d Cir.· 1982-06-03 ·cited 53×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Failure To State A Claim)
  The court held that while most of the plaintiff's claims failed to meet the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b), the claim regarding undisclosed, allegedly wrongful payments by foreign subsidiaries was sufficiently pleaded to withstand dismissal.
• George C. Frey Ready-Mixed Concrete, Inc. v. Pine Hill Concrete MIX Corp.
  554 F.2d 551· 2d Cir.· 1977-05-06 ·cited 53×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Failure To State A Claim)
  The court held that dismissal and summary judgment were premature because discovery was incomplete and genuine issues of material fact remained.
• TPO v. Hon. Thomas R. McMILLEN
  460 F.2d 348· 7th Cir.· 1972-04-28 ·cited 53×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  A magistrate lacks the power to rule on motions to dismiss or for summary judgment, and a district court cannot delegate such ultimate decision-making authority.
• Mem'l Hosp. Sys. v. Northbrook Life Ins. Co.
  904 F.2d 236· 5th Cir.· 1990-06-15 ·cited 52×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the group health insurance policy constituted an ERISA plan, but that the hospital's claim for deceptive trade practices under Texas law was not preempted by ERISA because it arose from the insurer's misrepresentation to a third-party provider, not from a clai
• Davis v. Zahradnick
  600 F.2d 458· 4th Cir.· 1979-06-29 ·cited 52×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted because genuine issues of material fact existed and the pro se plaintiff did not receive proper notice of the conversion of a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.
• Correa-Martinez v. Arrillaga-Belendez
  903 F.2d 49· 1st Cir.· 1990-04-30 ·cited 51×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  A public employee's association with a politically disfavored individual, without more, does not implicate the First Amendment unless the employee's own political beliefs or advocacy are involved.
• Martin v. Malhoyt
  830 F.2d 237· D.C. Cir.· 1987-09-29 ·cited 51×·via Rule 12(B)(6)
  The court denied the petition for rehearing, anticipating a forthcoming Supreme Court decision on absolute immunity for federal officers.
• Mack v. S. BAY Beer Distribs., Inc.
  798 F.2d 1279· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-02 ·cited 51×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  Unreviewed state administrative determinations of unemployment benefits do not have collateral estoppel effect in federal court for subsequent discrimination claims, as parties lack an adequate opportunity to litigate federal issues.
• Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc.
  677 F.2d 1045· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-07 ·cited 51×
  The court held that Avondale's antitrust counterclaim was barred by the statute of limitations because the alleged tying arrangement's damages were ascertainable at the time the contract was executed, and subsequent events did not constitute new antitrust violations.
• Rami Ziyadat v. Diamondrock Hospitality Co.
  3 F.4th 1291· 11th Cir.· 2021-07-13 ·cited 50×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  The court held that the plaintiff plausibly alleged a circumstantial case of racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
• Isiah v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
  960 F.3d 1296· 11th Cir.· 2020-06-01 ·cited 50×
  The court held that routine bank deposits do not constitute a fraudulent transfer under FUFTA, and a receiver lacks standing to bring aiding and abetting claims when the fraudulent acts of the entity in receivership are imputed to the receiver.
• Isadore Goldman v. Sears
  607 F.2d 1014· 1st Cir.· 1979-10-25 ·cited 50×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the plaintiff's employment discrimination claims were time-barred because he failed to file charges with the appropriate agencies within the statutory 180-day period, and the allegations did not establish a continuing violation.
• Cent. Contracting Co. v. Md. Cas. Co.
  367 F.2d 341· 3d Cir.· 1966-10-06 ·cited 50×
  A contractual forum selection clause is valid and enforceable if it is reasonable and does not seriously impair a party's ability to pursue its cause of action.
• Luce v. Edelstein
  802 F.2d 49· 2d Cir.· 1986-09-26 ·cited 49×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Failure To State A Claim)
  The court held that while some fraud allegations were insufficiently pleaded, others, particularly those concerning specific broken promises in the Offering Memorandum, stated a claim under Section 10(b). The court also found that dismissal without leave to amend was an abuse of
• Gibson v. United States
  457 F.2d 1391· 3d Cir.· 1972-03-30 ·cited 49×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Failure To State A Claim)
  The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act's assault and battery exception does not bar claims where the injury is a foreseeable consequence of the government's negligence in failing to protect against such acts, and that the discretionary function exception was not properly
• Dale v. Demarest J. Hahn
  440 F.2d 633· 2d Cir.· 1971-02-19 ·cited 48×
  The court held that a claim for deprivation of property rights, without more, does not state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and (4).
• Int'l Erectors, Inc. v. Wilhoit Steel Erectors & Rental Serv.
  400 F.2d 465· 5th Cir.· 1968-09-04 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the contract unambiguously showed Wilhoit had no duty to supply steel, and International was not a third-party beneficiary to Southern's contract. However, the condition for releasing retainage was remanded.
• Franchise Realty Interstate Corp. & McDonald's Sys. of Cal., Inc. v. SAN Francisco Local Joint Executive Bd. OF Culinary Workers
  542 F.2d 1076· 9th Cir.· 1976-09-17 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the allegations did not sufficiently plead foreclosure of access, and that a reversal based on rigid pleading rules should await a case not impeding First Amendment rights.
• Prakazrel Michel v. NYP Holdings, Inc.
  816 F.3d 686· 11th Cir.· 2016-03-07 ·cited 46×
  Prakazrel Michel, a Grammy-winning rapper and philanthropist, sued the New York Post and its reporters for defamation over an article claiming he failed to perform as headliner at a 9/11 charity event for a foundation he allegedly founded. The Eleventh Circuit held that although
• Berry v. Budget Rent a Car Sys., Inc.
  2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51492· S.D. Fla.· 2007-07-17 ·cited 46×
  Plaintiffs brought a class action against Budget Rent a Car Systems alleging that Budget's $3.00 daily cost recovery fee (CRF) violated consumer fraud statutes in New Jersey, Florida, and North Carolina, and constituted unjust enrichment and money had and received. The court appl
• Opelika Nursing Home, Inc. v. Elliott L. Richardson
  448 F.2d 658· 5th Cir.· 1971-09-16 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based solely on the pleadings, without allowing the plaintiffs an opportunity to present evidence to support their jurisdictional claim.
• Carroll v. Morrison Hotel Corp.
  149 F.2d 404· 7th Cir.· 1945-05-15 ·cited 46×
  The dissenting judge believes the Morrison Hotel Corporation lacked the power to enter into the contract without District Court approval due to retained jurisdiction.
• Beam
  Del.· 2004-03-31 ·cited 45×·via Rule 12(B)(6)
  The Court affirmed the dismissal of the derivative suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient particularized facts to demonstrate demand futility. Allegations of mere friendship or social connections between directors and the controlling shareholder were insuffic
• Hancock Indus. & Ace Serv. Corp. & E. Waste Removal & Charles Crumbley, Inc. v. Schaeffer
  811 F.2d 225· 3d Cir.· 1987-02-06 ·cited 45×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the district court's grant of summary judgment was proper because the defendants were immune from antitrust liability under the state action doctrine and the haulers' procedural challenges were either harmless error or based on insufficient grounds.
• Solis-Ramirez v. United States Dep't OF Just.
  758 F.2d 1426· 11th Cir.· 1985-04-25 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the savings clause does not permit an alien to elevate their status to a sixth preference immigrant without a labor certification, and the district court properly dismissed the claim.
• Am. Honda Motor Co. v. Motorcycle Info. Network, Inc.
  390 F. Supp. 2d 1170· M.D. Fla.· 2005-05-10 ·cited 44×·via Motion To Dismiss Standard (Rule 12(B)(6))
  The court held that claims for breach of contract implied in law (quasi contract) and constructive fraud fail to state a claim, but other claims, including breach of oral agreement, deceptive trade practices, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, are not preempted by the Unifor
• Wiltsie v. Cal. Dep't OF Corr. & Walter Dunbar
  406 F.2d 515· 9th Cir.· 1968-12-31 ·cited 44×