1,198 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,504 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-07-06
The court held that the prior settlement bars claims based on unit price miscalculations for transactions before August 26, 2020, but not claims based on weight inflation. Count III was dismissed as a shotgun pleading, but leave to amend was granted. The FDUPTA claim was sufficie
-
Aaron Rothenberg sued FedEx Corporation alleging that FedEx personnel engaged in a multi-faceted conspiracy to assault, defame, invade his privacy, and inflict emotional distress upon him since 2018, bringing claims for defamation, assault, invasion of privacy, intentional inflic
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-06-29
The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead a strict liability claim for failure to warn because she did not allege the inadequacy of the warning or that she read the product label.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-06-28
The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss because the plaintiff failed to respond, and the defendant's arguments regarding the discretionary function and independent contractor exceptions to the FTCA were plausible.
-
The court held that a pro se plaintiff's complaint, which was six lines long and lacked factual allegations, failed to state a claim and was frivolous, warranting dismissal.
-
The court held that a plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 survives dismissal when they allege a complete denial of service at one store location due to race, even if they later complete the transaction at another location of the same company. The court also held that state l
-
The court held that the complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege diversity jurisdiction.
-
Elias Makere, a Black former employee of Allstate, brought suit alleging race and sex discrimination, harassment, and retaliation occurring during and after his employment with the company. The district court dismissed most of Makere's claims, including his post-termination retal
-
The court granted the motion to dismiss the counterclaim because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
-
The court held that defendants' motion to dismiss was procedurally improper for filing a second Rule 12 motion, and their motion to strike was denied because the challenged allegations were not redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.
-
Plaintiff William E. Hattaway brought a securities fraud class action against medical device manufacturer Apyx Medical Corporation and two executives, alleging they made materially false statements and omitted material facts regarding the company's off-label product use and its f
-
The court held that the defendants waived their right to assert the PLRA exhaustion defense by failing to raise it in their initial motion to dismiss.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because probation violation proceedings are not criminal prosecutions and did not terminate in his favor, and civilian defendants are not state actors, while prose
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-06-09
The court held that SOIC's contingent claims for indemnity and subrogation against Langley were not premature and were sufficiently alleged, but the third-party complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failing to explicitly link claims to contractual subrogation language.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-06-05
The court held that the plaintiff adequately pled claims for defamation per se, defamation by implication, and conspiracy to defame, and therefore denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.
-
The court granted the motion to strike the expert declaration and denied the motion to dismiss, finding the patent claims were not directed to an unpatentable abstract idea.
-
The court held that the defendant's motion to dismiss should be denied because the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently pled a breach of contract claim and the defendant failed to comply with local rules regarding conferral with opposing counsel.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-06-01
The court held that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies for claims based on lack of informed consent, and that while jurisdiction existed for intentional tort claims, those claims failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was procedurally deficient. The court also denied the request for injunctive relief.
-
The court granted the motion to dismiss, finding the plaintiff's claims were based on legal conclusions without sufficient factual support.
-
A store manager cannot be held liable for negligence based solely on their position; personal fault or active negligence must be alleged and proven, and constructive notice is insufficient if the manager had no duty to implement protocols for the specific hazard.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to meet his burden to show the plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies and that the plaintiff's claim for declaratory relief may proceed, but claims for monetary damages against the defendant in his official capacity are barred b
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately allege actual or constructive notice for negligence claims and failed to plead vicarious liability with sufficient particularity.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-05-22
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a basis for relief under Rule 60(b) and had adequate notice of the personal jurisdiction issue.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-05-18
The court held that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege a pattern of racketeering activity required for a civil RICO claim, specifically regarding both closed-ended and open-ended continuity.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-05-17
The court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint with leave to amend.
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2023-05-16
The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss based on PREP Act immunity, finding that the complaint's allegations of ordinary negligence in a nursing home setting during the COVID-19 pandemic did not directly relate to the use or administration of a covered countermeasure.
-
Del. Ch.·
2023-05-15
The Court of Chancery denied the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the arbitration provision in the separation agreement did not divest the court of jurisdiction. However, the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for fa
-
The court held that a motion to dismiss the original complaint is moot once an amended complaint is filed, and the defendant has not shown grounds for dismissal of the amended complaint.
-
A private defense attorney is not a state actor for purposes of a § 1983 claim, and therefore, a prisoner cannot sue their attorney under this statute for ineffective assistance.
-
The court held that Count I of the amended complaint impermissibly commingles vicarious and direct liability allegations and is dismissed without prejudice, while other claims and allegations regarding notice are sufficient.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-05-09
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs' claims, though referencing federal constitutional rights, were pleaded as state-law torts and did not raise substantial federal questions.
-
The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for fraudulent transfer and conversion.
-
The court held that an HOA can be liable under the FCCPA and that attorney fees can be considered 'debt' under both the FDCPA and FCCPA, denying the motion to dismiss.
-
The Court of Chancery recommended granting the motion to dismiss in part and denying the motion to amend. Counts for breach of the implied covenant, promissory estoppel, and specific performance were recommended for dismissal. Claims for breach of the written agreement and fraudu
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-04-27
The court held that the statute of limitations for breach of contract did not bar the claim because the 'date of loss' for Ordinance or Law coverage is when the insured becomes liable for compliance costs, not the date of physical damage.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-04-26
The court held that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that employees were similarly situated for a collective action under the FLSA and that the FMWA pre-suit notice requirement was cured by the amended complaint.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege a causal link between her protected activity and termination for her Florida Whistleblower Act claim, but sufficiently alleged FLSA retaliation based on her overtime complaint.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint was a shotgun pleading and failed to state claims for disparate treatment and hostile work environment, and that some claims were not administratively exhausted.
-
The court held that the plaintiff plausibly alleged claims for negligent supervision and retention, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence, and thus denied in part and granted in part the motion to dismiss.
-
The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss. Claims arising from the 2015 lease term were dismissed as time-barred due to the three-year statute of limitations. The claim for reformation was dismissed for failure to adequately plead the elements
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that Marriott International, Inc. participated in a sex trafficking venture and that CHMB Florida Hotel Manager, LLC lacked specific factual allegations against it, warranting dismissal of the claims.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-04-19
The court held that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the defendants participated in a sex trafficking venture, a necessary element for a claim under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA).
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-04-18
The court held that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage because the plaintiff plausibly alleged a Fourth Amendment violation for an unlawful search and seizure of his car, as the inventory search exception did not apply.
-
A franchisor's receipt of royalty fees and room revenue does not constitute participation in a sex trafficking venture under the TVPRA when the complaint alleges only that the franchisor failed to prevent trafficking or took ineffective steps to stop it. Failure to affirmatively
-
A breach of contract claim for interest on insurance payments is barred if it is solely based on the insurer's failure to comply with a statutory provision that expressly prohibits private causes of action for such failures.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's copyright infringement claim was timely filed under the discovery rule, and Zomato.com was not an indispensable party, thus denying the motion to dismiss.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-04-15
The court held that a plaintiff cannot rely on a disability not mentioned in their EEOC charge to support a disability discrimination claim under the FCRA.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-04-14
The court held that it had specific personal jurisdiction over Best Western International (BWI) and denied BWI's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim regarding the "knowingly benefited" and "participation in a venture" elements of the TVPRA clai