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

• Madden v. Gluck
  815 F.2d 1163· 8th Cir.· 1987-02-11 ·cited 12×·via Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.
  The court held that allegations of a single fraudulent scheme, even if comprising multiple fraudulent acts, do not satisfy the 'pattern of racketeering activity' requirement for a RICO claim.
• La Porte Constr. Co., Inc. v. Bayshore Nat'l Bank OF La Porte
  805 F.2d 1254· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-17 ·cited 12×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  The court held that the RICO claims were time-barred and that the district court should have dismissed the state law claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after the federal claims were dismissed.
• Cap. Cities Media, Inc. v. Chester
  797 F.2d 1164· 3d Cir.· 1986-07-21 ·cited 12×
  The majority's decision to vacate the district court's judgment and remand for development of a record on an equal protection claim is unwarranted because the complaint, even as amended, fails to state such a claim.
• Hooten v. Fearon H. Jenne, III
  786 F.2d 692· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-07 ·cited 12×
  Local jail officials owe a duty to inmates to provide access to the courts, and a violation of this duty gives the inmate the right to pursue an action against them.
• Glick v. Gutbrod
  782 F.2d 754· 7th Cir.· 1986-01-30 ·cited 12×·via Rule 12(B)(6)
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the action due to the appellants' abusive litigation tactics and that Judge Hazlewood was protected by judicial immunity.
• W. Concrete Structures Co., Inc. v. Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc.
  760 F.2d 1013· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-17 ·cited 12×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  A conspiracy to engage in predatory pricing, where competitors cannot legally match the prices, is a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, not Section 1.
• Brobst v. Columbus Servs. Int'l
  761 F.2d 148· 3d Cir.· 1985-05-02 ·cited 12×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the prior consent decree does not automatically extend to all future operations of the defendant and that summary judgment was improperly granted on the plaintiffs' primary claim.
• Zimmer Paper Prods. Inc. v. Berger & Montague, P.C.
  758 F.2d 86· 3d Cir.· 1985-03-22 ·cited 12×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  The court held that a plaintiff's allegations of class counsel's failure to take reasonable follow-up steps after an initial notice with a low response rate, despite a large settlement fund, were sufficient to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, precluding dismissal or su
• FOX v. Consol. Rail Corp.
  739 F.2d 929· 3d Cir.· 1984-07-20 ·cited 12×
  Federal courts do not have jurisdiction to reopen private lawsuits brought and settled in state courts, even if based on federal law, for alleged violations of federal statutes in the settlement process.
• McGARR v. United States
  736 F.2d 912· 3d Cir.· 1984-06-15 ·cited 12×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint, as the allegations were sufficient to alert the defendant to the nature of the claim.
• Bradley v. Coughlin
  671 F.2d 686· 2d Cir.· 1982-01-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the prisoner's pro se complaint adequately stated claims for damages and that his first notice of appeal was timely and sufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction.
• Inez Chavez v. The City OF Santa FE Hous. Auth. & Emilia M. Martinez
  606 F.2d 282· 10th Cir.· 1979-09-24 ·cited 12×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  The court held that tenants of a housing authority have a protected property interest in continuing to receive housing benefits without unwarranted damage assessments, thus implicating due process protections.
• Gabauer v. Woodcock
  594 F.2d 662· 8th Cir.· 1979-03-06 ·cited 12×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Standard
  The court held that a union constitution does not grant officers unlimited discretion in expending union funds, and allegations that expenditures were antithetical to membership interests may state a claim under section 501.
• Bolding v. Austin
  575 F.2d 461· 4th Cir.· 1978-04-26 ·cited 12×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Failure To State A Claim)
  The court held that the complaint, which sought to have the federal district court assume supervision of the entire state prison system, failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and should have been dismissed.
• Marshall v. Daniel Constr. Co., Inc.
  563 F.2d 707· 5th Cir.· 1977-11-21 ·cited 12×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) Dismissal Standard
  The dissenting judge argues that the Secretary of Labor's regulation, allowing employees to refuse work in imminent danger without penalty, is reasonably related to the Occupational Safety and Health Act's purposes and should not be invalidated based on legislative history.
• Smith v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc.
  536 F.2d 1320· 10th Cir.· 1976-06-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) requires allegations of racial or otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators' actions, similar to the requirement for § 1985(3).
• Parr v. Great Lakes Express Co.
  484 F.2d 767· 7th Cir.· 1973-07-16 ·cited 12×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  The court held that the third-party complaint, liberally construed, stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, and thus the dismissal was improper.
• Robin Prods. Co. v. Tomecek
  465 F.2d 1193· 6th Cir.· 1972-08-23 ·cited 12×·via Rule 12(B)(6)
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the declaratory judgment action for lack of jurisdiction without an evidentiary hearing, as a genuine dispute existed regarding whether a charge of infringement could be inferred.
• Smith v. United States
  362 F.2d 366· 9th Cir.· 1966-06-06 ·cited 12×
  The court agreed with the disposition of the Per Curiam opinion and noted additional matters for the lower court to consider upon remand.
• Landau v. Roundpoint Mortg. Servicing Corp.
  925 F.3d 1365· 11th Cir.· 2019-06-11 ·cited 11×
  A motion to reschedule a previously ordered foreclosure sale does not constitute a prohibited motion for an order of sale under 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(g).
• Zivojinovich v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co., LLC
  445 F. Supp. 2d 1337· M.D. Fla.· 2006-08-01 ·cited 11×
  The court held that plaintiffs lacked standing for their loss of business revenue claim and dismissed it, but denied motions to dismiss most other federal and state law claims, including a counterclaim for battery.
• Campbell v. Miller
  836 F. Supp. 827· M.D. Fla.· 1993-10-22 ·cited 11×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient to state claims under MSAWPA, FLSA, FICA, and FUTA, and that the complaint was not so vague as to require a more definite statement.
• In re The Glacier BAY. KEE Leasing Co. v. Merrill McGAHAN
  944 F.2d 577· 9th Cir.· 1991-09-13 ·cited 11×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Failure To State A Claim)
  The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act (TAPAA) implicitly repealed the Limitation of Vessel Owner's Liability Act for vessels transporting trans-Alaska pipeline oil because the two statutes are in irreconcilable conflict.
• Boyer v. Snap-On Tools Corp.
  913 F.2d 108· 3d Cir.· 1990-09-05 ·cited 11×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Failure To State A Claim)
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the motion to remand because it improperly considered the merits of the release defense, which was common to both diverse and non-diverse defendants, in determining fraudulent joinder.
• Thomas v. Carpenter
  881 F.2d 828· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-09 ·cited 11×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  A public employee states a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliation when their employer takes adverse actions against them for engaging in constitutionally protected speech, even if the employee was not terminated or demoted.
• Glenn v. First Nat'l Bank IN Grand Junction
  868 F.2d 368· 10th Cir.· 1989-02-15 ·cited 11×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  A party's request for leave to amend, made in response to a motion to dismiss, is insufficient to constitute a motion for leave to amend, and the court is not obligated to consider it.
• Winston A. Mitchell, M.D. v. Frank R. Howard Mem'l Hosp.
  853 F.2d 762· 9th Cir.· 1988-08-09 ·cited 11×·via Motion To Dismiss Standard (Rule 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the hospital's activities did not substantially affect interstate commerce for Sherman Act jurisdiction and reversed the dismissal of Title VII claims based on an employment relationship with the hospital.
• Andrea Theatres, Inc. v. Theatre Confections, Inc.
  787 F.2d 59· 2d Cir.· 1986-03-31 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by abstaining from adjudicating federal antitrust claims over which federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. The court also dismissed the cross-appeal regarding dismissal for failure to state a claim, finding the com
• LFC Lessors, Inc. v. Pac. Sewer Maint. Corp.
  739 F.2d 4· 1st Cir.· 1984-07-11 ·cited 11×·via Rule 12(B)(6)
  A forum selection clause stating actions must be brought in the 'courts of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' is interpreted to mean only the state courts, and thus requires dismissal of a federal diversity action.
• Sommer v. Correctional Officer R. Dixon
  709 F.2d 173· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-08 ·cited 11×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the inmate's complaint failed to state a claim for a due process violation, as he received adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, and his conspiracy claim was too vague.
• Garrison v. Heublein, Inc.
  673 F.2d 189· 7th Cir.· 1982-03-17 ·cited 11×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  A manufacturer has no duty to warn consumers of the commonly known dangers associated with alcoholic beverages, as such dangers are not considered unreasonably dangerous.
• United States v. City OF Redwood City
  640 F.2d 963· 9th Cir.· 1981-02-23 ·cited 11×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that the United States may sue non-owners directly for wreck removal costs under the Wreck Removal Act and for oil cleanup costs under the FWPCA, and that maritime tort and nuisance claims are not precluded by the FWPCA.
• Global Network Mgmt., Ltd. v. CenturyLink Latin Am. Solutions, LLC
  67 F.4th 1312· 11th Cir.· 2023-05-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the implied bailment claim was plausibly alleged, but the claims for breach of contract implied in law and breach of contract implied in fact were properly dismissed.
• Larach v. Standard Chartered Bank Int'l (Americas) Ltd.
  724 F. Supp. 2d 1228· S.D. Fla.· 2010-07-02 ·cited 10×·via Motion To Dismiss Standard (Rule 12(B)(6))
  The court held that there is no implied private right of action to enforce Section 8 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, thus dismissing Count I. The court denied dismissal for Counts II-VIII, finding they sufficiently stated claims.
• In re Managed Care Litigation
  595 F. Supp. 2d 1349· S.D. Fla.· 2009-01-28 ·cited 10×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court affirmed and adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying dismissal of the ERISA claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but granting dismissal of state law claims due to ERISA preemption, and partially granting dismissal of the ADA's
• Hous. Opportunities Project for Excellence, Inc. v. Key Colony No. 4 Condo. Assoc., Inc.
  510 F. Supp. 2d 1003· S.D. Fla.· 2007-01-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that most claims stated a valid cause of action, but dismissed the retaliation claim and limited the statute of limitations for one plaintiff.
• Bearse v. Main St. Invs.
  220 F. Supp. 2d 1338· M.D. Fla.· 2002-07-03 ·cited 10×·via Motion To Dismiss Standard (Rule 12(B)(6))
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's report, recommending denial of motions to dismiss fraud claims and ordering the plaintiff to clarify the status of a trust for diversity jurisdiction purposes.
• McCANN v. Tex. City Ref., Inc.
  984 F.2d 667· 5th Cir.· 1993-03-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a party waives the right to challenge the sufficiency of evidence for willfulness on appeal if they fail to move for a directed verdict on that specific issue at trial. It also held that prejudgment interest is not recoverable when liquidated damages are award
• Boone v. Carlsbad Bancorporation, Inc.
  972 F.2d 1545· 10th Cir.· 1992-08-28 ·cited 10×·via Motion To Dismiss Standard (Rule 12(B)(6))
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment and dismissal of claims, finding that 12 U.S.C. § 215 applied to the merger, the Comptroller's appraisal was valid, RICO claims lacked continuity, and securities fraud claims failed on causation.
• Johnson v. Martin
  943 F.2d 15· 7th Cir.· 1991-09-12 ·cited 10×·via Motion To Dismiss Standard (Rule 12(B)(6))
  A probationary police officer's discharge and placement of positive drug test results in his personnel file does not violate his liberty interest in reputation without public disclosure of the stigmatizing information.
• Tucker v. Carlson
  925 F.2d 330· 9th Cir.· 1991-02-05 ·cited 10×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  The court held that a federal prisoner's civil rights complaint challenging the fact or duration of confinement must be construed as a habeas corpus petition, and claims for damages as a Bivens action.
• Monks v. Marlinga
  923 F.2d 423· 6th Cir.· 1991-01-08 ·cited 10×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  The court affirmed the dismissal because the plaintiffs failed to submit an affidavit under Rule 56(f) justifying their inability to present essential facts in opposition to the summary judgment motion.
• Zilkha Energy Co. v. Leighton
  920 F.2d 1520· 10th Cir.· 1990-12-10 ·cited 10×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that while the district court correctly dismissed the bankruptcy claims as time-barred under a proper interpretation of § 546(a), it erred in not considering the equitable claim for unjust enrichment under the doctrine of laches.
• Hamilton J. Whiting v. Maiolini
  921 F.2d 5· 1st Cir.· 1990-12-07 ·cited 10×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  The court held that converting a motion for judgment on the pleadings to a motion for summary judgment without adequate notice and opportunity for discovery is improper.
• Edwards v. Cass Cnty.
  919 F.2d 273· 5th Cir.· 1990-11-30 ·cited 10×·via Motion To Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6))
  The court held that a district court's refusal to allow a late-filed motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity is not an immediately appealable "final decision" under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, even if the refusal is an abuse of discretion.
• Barrientos v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co. & David R. Barrientos
  911 F.2d 1115· 5th Cir.· 1990-09-17 ·cited 10×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  The court held that the parenthetical phrase in the deemer clause of ERISA does not remove death benefit plans from ERISA preemption, but only from the deemer clause's prohibition against state regulation.
• Finlator v. Powers
  902 F.2d 1158· 4th Cir.· 1990-05-10 ·cited 10×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  The court held that non-exempt parties have standing to challenge a state tax exemption for Holy Bibles, and that the exemption violates the Establishment Clause and the Free Press Clause of the Constitution.
• Debro Siddig Abdul-Akbar v. Watson
  901 F.2d 329· 3d Cir.· 1990-04-20 ·cited 10×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Standard
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the inmate's claims as frivolous and in issuing an injunction barring future filings without proper consideration of the inmate's access to the courts. The injunction was vacated and the case remanded.
• Ricketts v. Midwest Nat'l Bank
  874 F.2d 1177· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a district court must first assess the substantiality of federal claims to determine subject matter jurisdiction before considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and that sua sponte dismissals require notice and an opportunity
• Rocks v. City OF Philadelphia
  868 F.2d 644· 3d Cir.· 1989-03-01 ·cited 10×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  Taxpayers who are not directly injured and have no special relationship with the injured parties lack standing to assert equal protection claims based on municipal contracting requirements.