Rule 12(B)(6) Standard

116 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Carpenters Local Union NO. 1846 OF the United Bhd. OF Carpenters & Joiners OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Pratt-Farnsworth, Inc.
  690 F.2d 489· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-04 ·cited 112×
  The court held that section 301 claims against non-signatory AGC defendants were properly dismissed for lack of a contractual relationship, but claims against Farnsworth should be remanded, and claims against Halmar based on single employer/alter ego theories require further deve
• Correa-Martinez v. Arrillaga-Belendez
  903 F.2d 49· 1st Cir.· 1990-04-30 ·cited 51×
  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.
• 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.
• Williams v. Faulkner
  837 F.2d 304· 7th Cir.· 1988-01-12 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a district court's sua sponte dismissal of a pro se, in forma pauperis complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) requires a less stringent standard than a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), and that the Eighth Amendment claim against certain defendants was not frivolous
• Wilburn S. Bruce v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Conroe, Inc.
  837 F.2d 712· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the word 'and' in the antitying provision of 12 U.S.C.A. § 1464(q)(1) should be interpreted disjunctively, and that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim under subsection (1)(B).
• Saxe v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc.
  789 F.2d 105· 2d Cir.· 1986-04-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the investor's fraud claim under Rule 10b-5 was properly dismissed because the alleged misrepresentations were not made 'in connection with' the sale of a security, but the investor's claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and for churning were improperly dis
• Nat'l Subscription Television v. S & H TV
  644 F.2d 820· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-07 ·cited 17×
  The court held that subscription television (STV) signals, though intended for reception by the public, are not broadcast 'for the use of the general public' when access is restricted to paying subscribers via special equipment, and thus are protected by section 605 of the Federa
• Clark v. Amoco Prod. Co.
  794 F.2d 967· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the appellants' claim under the doctrines of presumed lost deed and laches, as these defenses were not sufficiently established on the face of the pleadings. The court also found that res judicata did not bar the claim.
• Gabauer v. Woodcock
  594 F.2d 662· 8th Cir.· 1979-03-06 ·cited 12×
  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.
• Debro Siddig Abdul-Akbar v. Watson
  901 F.2d 329· 3d Cir.· 1990-04-20 ·cited 10×
  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.
• Misco, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp. & Alside
  784 F.2d 198· 6th Cir.· 1986-02-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed federal antitrust claims and the claim for wrongful inducement to breach a contract, but erred in its disposition of the breach of contract claim, which is reversed and remanded.
• Thompson v. Florida Bar
  526 F. Supp. 2d 1264· S.D. Fla.· 2007-11-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Younger/Middlesex abstention applies to the plaintiff's claims, requiring dismissal of the federal action.
• Moore v. Mabus
  976 F.2d 268· 5th Cir.· 1992-11-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the dismissal of the civil rights complaint under § 1915(d) was improper due to the complexity of the issues and the need for further factual and legal development, but affirmed the dismissal of the privacy and loss of privileges claims.
• Keys v. Wolfe
  709 F.2d 413· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' allegations regarding a substituted contract, which imposed new personal liabilities and risks related to irrigation, could constitute a "purchase or sale" of a security under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and thus the dismissal of count 5 was
• Langbehn v. Pub. Health Tr. of Miami-Dade
  661 F. Supp. 2d 1326· S.D. Fla.· 2009-10-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that hospitals and doctors do not owe a freestanding legal duty to allow visitation for patients in critical or terminal condition, nor a duty to provide routine medical updates to third parties not authorized to make medical decisions.
• Sanford Brass v. Am. Film Techs.
  987 F.2d 142· 2d Cir.· 1993-03-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that summary judgment for the defendant on the conversion claim was proper, but reversed summary judgment on the contract claim due to ambiguity and remanded the fraud claim for further proceedings.
• Johansen v. The City OF Bartlesville
  862 F.2d 1423· 10th Cir.· 1988-12-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief under § 1983 were moot, and their claims for punitive damages and under § 1985 were insufficient or withdrawn, warranting dismissal.
• Rochester Harris v. Johnson
  784 F.2d 222· 6th Cir.· 1986-02-24 ·cited 6×
  A district court must explicitly state it is invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and dismissing a complaint as frivolous when ordering a sua sponte dismissal under that statute.
• Green v. Carnival Corp.
  2023 WL 5831727· S.D. Fla.· 2024-11-05 ·cited 1×
  The court recommended granting in part and denying in part Carnival's motion to dismiss, finding the plaintiff adequately alleged constructive notice of a defective flooring hazard.
• Wordley v. San Miguel
  490 F. Supp. 2d 749· S.D. Fla.· 2013-01-03 ·cited 1×
  The district court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the officer's conduct violated clearly established law, thus entitling the officer to qualified immunity.
• In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation
  160 F. Supp. 2d 1365· S.D. Fla.· 2001-07-25 ·cited 1×
  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.
• Sherleigh Assocs., LLC v. Windmere-Durable Holdings, Inc.
  178 F. Supp. 2d 1255· S.D. Fla.· 2000-06-08 ·cited 1×
  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.
• Genesis CMG Holdings LLC v. Yancey
  Del. Ch.· 2026-02-26
  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
• Lakeview Loan Servicing LLC v. Frederick
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2026-02-18
  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
• Chase v. Arbor Props. Dev. Inc.
  N.D. Fla.· 2026-01-09
  The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint is a shotgun pleading and fails to state a claim for retaliation under the Fair Housing Act or defamation under Florida law.
• White v. Warden Payne
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-05
  A prisoner's claim of being placed in a strip cell without adequate hygiene supplies for 72 hours may state an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim, but does not trigger Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process protections.
• Thundathil v. United States
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-21
  The court recommended dismissal of the complaint without prejudice because it constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading and failed to state a claim under many cited statutes, and the motion to proceed in forma pauperis was denied without prejudice.
• Reverend Everett Roy Reel II v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-10
  The court recommended denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the case without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to cure deficiencies in his filing and complaint after being given an opportunity to do so.
• Hall v. Harris
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-19
  The court held that the amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and denied the motion for default judgment.
• Hargrove v. ABM Indus., Inc.
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-09-12
  The court held that the plaintiff's third amended complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief under Title VII, the ADA, or the FCRA.
• Russell v. CS Contract Solutions, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-11
  The Court held that the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint constituted a shotgun pleading and dismissed it, granting leave to amend.
• Gyden v. Dixson
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-27
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations, when liberally construed, state plausible claims under the First Amendment, RLUIPA, and the Equal Protection Clause, sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
• Dewitt v. Sullivan
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-06-17
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a cognizable federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 406 and that the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law breach of contract claim.
• Penrod Bros. Inc v. City of Miami Beach
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-06-10
  The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing the procedural and substantive due process claims for failure to allege a protected liberty or property interest.
• N.G. v. G6 Hospitality Prop. LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-07
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the defendant participated in a venture with the sex traffickers, a necessary element for a TVPRA sex trafficking beneficiary claim.
• Accelerant Specialty Ins. Co. v. Buzbee Robertson, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-01
  The court held that the jury trial demand in the amended counterclaim is stricken, but the claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, deceptive business practices, and fraud survive the motion to dismiss.
• Loeffler v. MNTN, Inc.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2025-04-28
  The court granted in part and stayed in part the defendant's motion to dismiss. The breach of promissory note claim was stayed pending resolution of a related Chancery Action. The declaratory judgment claim was dismissed as duplicative. The claim for breach of the implied covenan
• Jones v. Spradley
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-21
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment for excessive force or deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
• Phillips v. Johnson
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-04-14
  Official-capacity claims against state officials are barred by sovereign immunity and because states/agencies are not 'persons' under § 1983.
• Grau v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-10
  The court held that the pro se prisoner's complaint, alleging failure to protect from an inmate attack, was dismissed for failing to state a claim and naming improper defendants, but was granted leave to amend.
• Braxton v. Super Ego Holding
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-09
  The court held that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims due to failure to state a claim, lack of federal question jurisdiction, and failure to establish diversity jurisdiction.
• Robinson v. Edwards
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-07
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because his allegations were conclusory, failed to establish a constitutional deprivation, and did not meet the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
• Scocozzo v. Attorney General of Florida
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-11
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim and is subject to dismissal under the PLRA and Younger abstention doctrine.
• MacIntyre v. City of Palm Bay
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-06
  The court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, thus dismissing the federal claims and declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.
• Victoria v. Warden, Coleman I
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-06
  The court held that a Bivens claim does not extend to the facts alleged, as they present a new context and special factors, such as an alternative administrative remedy, counsel against recognizing such a claim.
• Cowart v. Duro
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-17
  The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint, which relied on criminal statutes and failed to comply with pleading rules and prior court orders, should be dismissed without prejudice.
• Harris v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-11-21
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a claim and was due to be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with court orders and for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• Graham v. Bruce
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-11-20
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and further amendment would be futile.
• Deshong & Sons Contractors, Inc. v. Wallworks, Inc.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2024-10-23
  The Court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that Rule 14 permits a third-party claim for negligent procurement of insurance, that the statute of limitations defense requires further factual development, and that arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived.
• Noshirvan v. Couture
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-13
  The court granted the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing Counts I and VI without prejudice, with leave for the plaintiff to amend.