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

• IN & FOR NEW Castle Cnty. Bruce E. Zoren
  Del. Ch.· 2003-07-28
  The court dismissed the plaintiff's amended complaint, finding that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court held that the plaintiff did not adequately allege a breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the restructuring, as the claims were eithe
• In & for New Castle Cnty. in re the Walt Disney Co. Consol. Derivative Litig.
  Del. Ch.· 2003-05-28
  The Court of Chancery denied defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs' second amended derivative complaint sufficiently pleaded a breach of fiduciary duty by the directors to withstand a motion to dismiss under Chancery Rules 23.1 and 12(b)(6). The court conclu
• Spanish Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Clear Channel Commc'ns, Inc.
  242 F. Supp. 2d 1350· S.D. Fla.· 2003-01-31
  The court held that a plaintiff must allege injury to competition, not just injury to itself, to state a claim under the Sherman Act. A non-competitor in the relevant market cannot be liable under Section One or Two of the Sherman Act.
• Beeline Ent. P'rs, Ltd. v. Cnty. of Orange
  243 F. Supp. 2d 1333· M.D. Fla.· 2003-01-13 ·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were not ripe for adjudication because they involved as-applied challenges to an ordinance and the plaintiff had not exhausted administrative remedies.
• In & for New Castle Cnty. Stonington P'rs, Inc.
  Del. Ch.· 2002-10-23
  The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for default judgment against defendants Hauspie and Willaert, and denied defendant Lemout's motion to enlarge time, effectively granting default judgment against Lemout as well. The Court found that the defendants had failed to appear, ple
• In & for New Castle Cnty. Summit Invs. II
  Del. Ch.· 2002-09-20
  The Court of Chancery dismissed the complaint against Ron Sechrist and the Sechrist Trust for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding they lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Delaware. The court also dismissed the claims against the defendant directors, finding they were not n
• Flint v. ABB, Inc.
  229 F. Supp. 2d 1338· S.D. Fla.· 2002-08-12 ·via Motion To Dismiss Standard (Rule 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for accrued interest on delayed benefits under ERISA because the amended complaint did not adequately allege a violation of the plan or ERISA that would give rise to equitable relief.
• Republic of Ecuador v. Philip Morris Cos.
  188 F. Supp. 2d 1359· S.D. Fla.· 2002-02-26 ·via Motion To Dismiss Standard (Rule 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the revenue rule, a common law doctrine preventing courts of one sovereign from enforcing the unadjudicated tax claims of another, requires abstention in this case, thus barring the Republic of Ecuador's civil RICO and common law claims against tobacco compani
• Southtrust Bank v. Exp. Ins. Servs., Inc.
  190 F. Supp. 2d 1304· M.D. Fla.· 2002-02-19
  The court held that the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded facts to support claims for breach of oral contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and estoppel against the defendant insurance agent.
• Temple v. Gorman
  201 F. Supp. 2d 1238· S.D. Fla.· 2002-01-29 ·via Motion To Dismiss Standard (Rule 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the Section 12(a)(1) claim was time-barred and that state securities law claims were preempted by federal law.
• Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. v. Smith
  180 F. Supp. 2d 1311· M.D. Fla.· 2002-01-04 ·via Motion To Dismiss Standard (Rule 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the ERISA claim (Count IV) against the law firm could proceed, but the state law claims for tortious interference and conversion (Counts V and VI) were preempted by ERISA.
• LU v. Malpiede
  Del.· 2001-08-27
  The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery's dismissal of a class action complaint challenging a merger. The court held that allegations did not support claims for breach of the target board's duty of loyalty or disclosure duties, nor claims against the acquiring c
• Hunt v. City of Mulberry
  173 F. Supp. 2d 1288· M.D. Fla.· 2001-02-08 ·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the plaintiff's federal due process claims failed because he received adequate pre- and post-termination procedures and available state remedies, and that state-created employment rights are not protected by substantive due process. The court declined suppleme
• Goney v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.
  144 F. Supp. 2d 1286· M.D. Fla.· 2001-01-10 ·via Rule 12(B)(6)
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant's counterclaims should be denied because the release agreement was ambiguous regarding the assignment clause, and counterclaims for reformation and restitution were permissible even after the Mazzoni Farms decisio
• McMullin
  Del.· 2000-11-20 ·via Rule 12(B)(6)
  The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery's dismissal of the plaintiff's amended complaint, finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Chemical Directors in connection with the sale of Chemical to Lyondell. The court held t
• In & for New Castle Cnty. Universal Compression, Inc.
  Del. Ch.· 2000-10-19 ·via Rule 12(B)(6) Standard
  The Court of Chancery granted Tidewater's motion to dismiss Count I, finding that Section 9.4 of the Stock Purchase Agreement did not obligate Tidewater to pay Universal's increased franchise tax liability. However, the Court denied the motion to dismiss Counts II, III, IV, and V
• Seguros Commercial Am. v. Hall
  115 F. Supp. 2d 1371· M.D. Fla.· 2000-09-15
  The court held that while the Convention is self-executing and grants federal jurisdiction, it does not create a private right of action for the Mexican insurers to pursue claims in federal court.
• In & for New Castle Cnty. in re Cooper Cos., Inc.
  Del. Ch.· 2000-07-27
  The Court of Chancery denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated and amended shareholder derivative complaint. The court found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded demand futility by alleging facts creating a reasonable doubt as to the disinterestedness an
• Kruger v. Jenne
  164 F. Supp. 2d 1330· S.D. Fla.· 2000-06-19 ·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, denying defendants' motions to dismiss and for a more definite statement, finding the plaintiff's allegations sufficient to proceed.
• Kissimmee River Valley Sportsmans Ass'n v. City of Lakeland
  60 F. Supp. 2d 1289· M.D. Fla.· 1999-08-17
  The Court held that the Federal Aid in Sportfish Recreation Act and its regulations do not create a federal right enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and therefore dismissed the federal claim and related state law claims.
• Swanson v. Mid Am, Inc.
  962 F. Supp. 2d 1299· M.D. Fla.· 1999-03-23 ·via Rule 12(B)(6)
• Volpe v. US Airways, Inc.
  956 F. Supp. 2d 711· M.D. Fla.· 1998-12-10 ·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that by relying on its internal investigation as an affirmative defense, the defendant waived any privilege protecting the underlying investigative materials.
• Cochran v. United States
  38 F. Supp. 2d 986· N.D. Fla.· 1998-09-01
  The court held that the United States is shielded from liability by the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, thus dismissing the plaintiff's claims for lack of jurisdiction.
• In & for New Castle Cnty. in re Encore Computefl Corp. Consol. S'holders Litigati.on
  Del. Ch.· 1997-07-17
  The Court of Chancery properly granted the motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to establish a breach of the duty of loyalty or a breach of the duty of disclosure. The challenged transactions were approved by disinterested dire
• Brown v. City of Pompano Beach
  969 F. Supp. 1317· S.D. Fla.· 1997-06-23
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims regarding termination based on drug test results were time-barred by the statute of limitations, but claims regarding the refusal to submit to arbitration were not.
• Schism v. United States
  972 F. Supp. 1398· N.D. Fla.· 1997-06-10 ·via Rule 12(B)(6)
  The court held that plaintiffs' breach of contract and Fifth Amendment claims related to pre-1956 military medical benefits could proceed, but their age discrimination claims under the ADEA and Fifth Amendment were dismissed.
• Coronado v. BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc.
  951 F. Supp. 1025· S.D. Fla.· 1997-01-22 ·via Motion To Dismiss Standard (Rule 12(B)(6))
  The court held that BankAtlantic is immune from civil liability for disclosing suspected violations of law under the Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act.
• Hialeah, Inc. v. Fla. Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective Ass'n
  899 F. Supp. 616· S.D. Fla.· 1995-08-25
  The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's antitrust and constitutional claims, finding sufficient allegations of harm to competition and that the IHA's constitutionality as applied was not precluded by a sister circuit's ruling. The court granted plaintiff's
• Gary v. D. Agustini & Asociados, S.A.
  898 F. Supp. 901· S.D. Fla.· 1995-08-22 ·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Failure To State A Claim)
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead the jurisdictional facts necessary to establish the applicability of 46 U.S.C. § 10314(b), requiring dismissal of his claims.
• Parsons v. Nationwide Mut. Ins.
  889 F. Supp. 465· M.D. Fla.· 1995-06-23 ·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Failure To State A Claim)
  The court held that individual employees cannot be sued for sexual harassment or retaliation under Title VII, but a defamation claim may proceed. Allegations of poisoning horses and shooting dogs were struck from the sexual harassment claim but allowed for the emotional distress
• Reynard v. NEC Corp.
  887 F. Supp. 1500· M.D. Fla.· 1995-05-17 ·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding the plaintiffs failed to present admissible evidence establishing medical causation for their wrongful death claim.
• Trs. of the Hotel Indus. Pension Fund v. Carol Mgmt. Corp.
  795 F. Supp. 1106· S.D. Fla.· 1995-03-27
  The court held that the amended complaint sufficiently alleged facts that, if proven, could satisfy the 'written agreement' requirement of LMRA section 302(c)(5)(B), even with unsigned agreements, and thus denied the motion to dismiss.
• Patterson v. von Riesen
  999 F.2d 1235· 8th Cir.· 1993-07-23
  Prosecutors, parole board members, and prison wardens are absolutely immune from damages for actions taken within the scope of their official duties, including prosecutorial decisions, parole determinations, and incarceration pursuant to valid court orders.
• Gilbert v. Sears
  1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10023· M.D. Fla.· 1993-07-14 ·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded claims for violations of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but granted a motion for more definite statement regarding potential conspiracy claims.
• Pack v. United States
  992 F.2d 955· 9th Cir.· 1993-05-05
  The court held that a waiver of restrictions on assessment in a closing agreement for TEFRA partnership items does not suspend interest when the waiver is contrary to the Internal Revenue Code.
• Bonham v. Dist. of Columbia Library Admin.
  989 F.2d 1242· D.C. Cir.· 1993-04-16 ·via Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim, as the plaintiff might be able to prove facts entitling him to relief under the Establishment Clause.
• Castillo v. Cook Cnty. Mail Room Dep't
  990 F.2d 304· 7th Cir.· 1993-03-30 ·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Failure To State A Claim)
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations of unintentional and isolated negligence in mail handling do not support a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Farr v. United States
  990 F.2d 451· 9th Cir.· 1993-03-29 ·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  The court held that the employer is not immune from liability for turning over exempt workmen's compensation benefits, as these were not subject to the IRS levy. The court also held that the dismissal of the claim challenging the procedural validity of the wage levy against the U
• Moreno v. Macaluso
  707 F. App'x 724· M.D. Fla.· 1993-03-29
• Gomez-Vigil v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  990 F.2d 1111· 9th Cir.· 1993-03-26 ·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  The Board of Immigration Appeals erred by taking administrative notice of Nicaragua's government change without providing petitioners an opportunity to contest the noticed facts, thus denying them due process.
• Boston & Me. Corp. v. Town OF Hampton
  987 F.2d 855· 1st Cir.· 1993-03-05 ·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that New Hampshire law requires actual notice and an opportunity to correct a hazardous condition for municipal liability, and that the district court's application of a heightened pleading standard, even if erroneous, was harmless.
• Wade v. Hopper
  993 F.2d 1246· 7th Cir.· 1993-02-17 ·via Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint, properly dismissed the RICO and Bivens claims, and correctly applied res judicata to bar the unreasonable search claim.
• In re Lyondell Petrochemical Co. Sec. Litig. Joseph H. Levit v. Lyondell Petrochemical Co.
  984 F.2d 1050· 9th Cir.· 1993-01-29 ·via Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.
  A company has no duty to disclose internal financial projections to the public, even if disclosed to a lender, unless those projections are based on existing negative factors known to the company and affect the veracity of forward-looking statements.
• Gallegos v. City & Cnty. OF Denver
  984 F.2d 358· 10th Cir.· 1993-01-20 ·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden of showing that the defendants' actions violated clearly established law, entitling the defendants to qualified immunity.
• Carter v. Cornwell
  983 F.2d 52· 6th Cir.· 1993-01-06 ·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint based on official immunity under Kentucky law, as the alleged failure to post and enforce speed limits constituted a regulatory function protected by immunity.
• Cash v. Jefferson Assocs., Inc.
  978 F.2d 217· 5th Cir.· 1992-12-02 ·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the appellant's pleading sufficiently indicated a claim for willful discrimination under the ADEA, thus invoking the three-year statute of limitations and precluding dismissal.
• Colantuno v. Aetna Ins. Co.
  980 F.2d 908· 3d Cir.· 1992-12-01 ·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the Pennsylvania bad faith statute applies to conduct occurring after its effective date, even if the insurance policy predates the statute.
• Chandler v. McMINNVILLE Sch. Dist.
  978 F.2d 524· 9th Cir.· 1992-10-28 ·via Motion To Dismiss Standard (Rule 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the district court erred in granting the defendant's motion to dismiss, as the plaintiffs stated a claim for relief.
• Pena v. Booth Gardner
  976 F.2d 469· 9th Cir.· 1992-09-15
  The court held that determining whether a suit is against an official in their "official" or "individual" capacity requires analyzing the specifics of the conduct, not just the caption.
• Ketchum v. City OF W. Memphis
  974 F.2d 81· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-02 ·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))