Rule 12(B)(6)

791 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 518 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Candis O. RAY v. Senator William Proxmire
  581 F.2d 998· D.C. Cir.· 1978-07-31 ·cited 4×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  A complaint alleging defamation, misuse of Senate facilities, voting for business interests, and unfair competition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
• Holder v. Nelson
  514 F.2d 1091· 9th Cir.· 1975-04-29 ·cited 4×·via Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action and denying the request for a three-judge court, as the claims presented were not insubstantial.
• NEW Jersey Welf. Rights Org. v. Cahill
  448 F.2d 1247· 3d Cir.· 1971-09-28 ·cited 4×
  The court remanded the case to the district court for clarification on the grounds for dismissal and for further proceedings.
• Knudsen v. The Torrington Co.
  254 F.2d 283· 2d Cir.· 1958-04-18 ·cited 4×·via Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.
  A sales agency contract, though personal, is delegable if the principal impliedly assented to changes in the business organization or personnel, and the surviving entity provides substantially what was bargained for.
• Munson Line, Inc. v. Green
  165 F.2d 321· 2d Cir.· 1948-01-05 ·cited 4×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  The court held that an order dismissing some but not all counts of a complaint is not a final, appealable order when the remaining counts arise from the same set of facts.
• Wash. Bldg. Realty Corp. v. Peoples Drug Stores, Inc.
  161 F.2d 879· D.C. Cir.· 1947-04-07 ·cited 4×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Failure To State A Claim)
  A cross-claim must state a claim for relief, not merely allege facts that constitute a defense.
• Calderon v. Sixt Rent a Car, LLC
  998 F. Supp. 2d 1360· S.D. Fla.· 2020-02-12 ·cited 3×
  The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss Calderon's claims and denied their motion to compel arbitration of Marin's claims.
• Trinidad v. Trivago GMBH
  2009 WL 10664410· S.D. Fla.· 2020-01-13 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a stay of discovery is not warranted when the defendant seeks dismissal on multiple grounds, absent a showing of good cause and reasonableness.
• Edward J. Goodman Life Income Tr. v. Jabil Cir., Inc.
  595 F. Supp. 2d 1253· M.D. Fla.· 2009-01-26 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the third amended complaint failed to adequately plead fraud and scienter with the particularity required by Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA, even with the addition of new allegations.
• In re Winn-Dixie Stores
  531 F. Supp. 2d 1334· M.D. Fla.· 2007-12-04 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the consolidated complaint failed to state a claim for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 because it did not sufficiently allege material misstatements or omissions with the required particularity.
• Abusaid v. Hillsborough Cnty. BD.
  637 F. Supp. 2d 1002· M.D. Fla.· 2007-09-06 ·cited 3×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  The court found that Plaintiff had standing to challenge specific permitting provisions of the Ordinance for lack of circumscribed time and limitless discretion, but not other constitutional claims.
• In re Sinaltrainal Litigation
  474 F. Supp. 2d 1273· S.D. Fla.· 2006-09-29 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' allegations were too conclusory, vague, and attenuated to adequately plead a violation of the law of nations, thus the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Claims Act.
• In re Catalina Mktg. Corp. Sec. Litig.
  390 F. Supp. 2d 1110· M.D. Fla.· 2005-03-31 ·cited 3×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Failure To State A Claim)
  The court held that the plaintiffs' allegations of scienter and fraud were sufficiently particular to survive a motion to dismiss under the PSLRA and Rule 9(b).
• Wexler v. Lepore
  319 F. Supp. 2d 1354· S.D. Fla.· 2004-05-24 ·cited 3×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Failure To State A Claim)
  The court held that Younger abstention applies, requiring dismissal of the federal complaint due to ongoing state proceedings concerning the same issues.
• JES Props., Inc. v. USA Equestrian, Inc.
  253 F. Supp. 2d 1273· M.D. Fla.· 2003-03-28 ·cited 3×
  The court granted defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead claims under the Sherman Act and that a request to amend the Clayton Act claim was procedurally improper.
• Chiroff v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am.
  142 F. Supp. 2d 1360· S.D. Fla.· 2000-11-16 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims for equitable estoppel, breach of fiduciary duty, and state law bad faith were preempted by ERISA, and that the proper defendant for the benefits claim was CIGNA, not LINA.
• Primerica Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Mitchell
  48 F. Supp. 2d 1363· S.D. Fla.· 1999-01-13 ·cited 3×
  The court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying the defendant's motion to dismiss because the plaintiffs had adequately stated claims for tortious interference, civil conspiracy, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment, and Florida's statute regardi
• Friedman v. S.C. Ins.
  855 F. Supp. 348· M.D. Fla.· 1994-06-08 ·cited 3×
  Federal law preempts state law remedies for attorneys' fees and emotional distress damages in breach of contract actions involving policies issued under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968.
• Tamiami P'rs v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida
  898 F. Supp. 1549· S.D. Fla.· 1994-02-28 ·cited 3×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  The court granted the Miccosukee Tribal Court's motion to dismiss and granted in part and denied in part the remaining defendants' motion to dismiss, finding federal question jurisdiction over challenges to tribal court jurisdiction and actions exceeding sovereign powers.
• Eidson v. Arenas
  837 F. Supp. 1158· M.D. Fla.· 1993-11-10 ·cited 3×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  The court held that the defendants, as private actors, did not act under color of state law, thus the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction for the federal claims and pendant jurisdiction for the state claims.
• Moore v. State OF Ind.
  999 F.2d 1125· 7th Cir.· 1993-07-20 ·cited 3×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Failure To State A Claim)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint because the proposed amendments would be futile.
• Heffernan v. Pac. Dunlop GNB Corp.
  965 F.2d 369· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-05 ·cited 3×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  This case involves a dissent arguing that a jury's award to Danco for tortious interference with advantageous business relationships should be reversed because GNB's actions to collect a debt did not constitute direct or unjustified interference.
• Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp.
  929 F.2d 1515· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-11 ·cited 3×·via Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.
  A party does not waive the right to appeal a dismissal of a claim if the claim was already dismissed on its merits and repleading it would be futile. The court also held that the actions of the appellee did not breach an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Oklah
• Jerrold I. Patee, Jr. v. Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co.
  803 F.2d 476· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-24 ·cited 3×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  Male employees lack standing under Title VII to bring a claim of sex discrimination based on alleged discrimination against women.
• Middleton v. The Hollywood Reporter LLC
  137 F.4th 1287· 11th Cir.· 2025-05-23 ·cited 2×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  The court held that California's one-year statute of limitations applied to the defamation claims, barring the action.
• Williams v. Toll Bros. Builders
  2021 WL 3200825· Del. Super. Ct.· 2022-07-11 ·cited 2×
  The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion (res judicata). The court found that the current lawsuit arose from the same operative facts as previous dismissed actions, and the plaintiff h
• Dukes Clothing, LLC v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co.
  35 F. 4th 1322· 11th Cir.· 2022-06-06 ·cited 2×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  The court held that under Alabama law, "accidental physical loss or accidental physical damage" requires a tangible alteration to the insured property, and the presence of COVID-19 does not constitute such damage.
• UI Techs., Inc. v. Ricoma Int'l Corp.
  2019 WL 418860· S.D. Fla.· 2022-05-26 ·cited 2×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  The court held that venue was improper in the Eastern District of New York because the defendants did not have a regular and established place of business there, and therefore granted the motion to transfer the case to the Southern District of Florida.
• S. Y. v. Naples Hotel Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-04-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and Florida's civil RICO statute, denying the defendants' motion to dismiss.
• In re Chiquita Brands Int'l, Inc.
  792 F. Supp. 2d 1301· S.D. Fla.· 2011-06-03 ·cited 2×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Failure To State A Claim)
  The court found that the Anti-Terrorism Act does not preclude Alien Tort Statute claims for terrorism by non-U.S. nationals, and that the ATS may recognize claims for terrorism if they meet specific international law criteria.
• Robbins v. City of Miami Beach
  769 F. Supp. 2d 1372· S.D. Fla.· 2011-01-20 ·cited 2×
  The court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss, finding that while some assault and battery claims against an officer were dismissed for failure to state a claim, other claims, including excessive force and conspiracy, could proceed.
• Rushing v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
  752 F. Supp. 2d 1254· M.D. Fla.· 2010-11-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Florida Securities Investor Protection Act (FSIPA) does not provide a cause of action for "holding" securities or for a buyer's agent's improper investment selection advice, but that claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty are not barred by the
• In re Fla. Cement & Concrete Antitrust Litig.
  746 F. Supp. 2d 1291· S.D. Fla.· 2010-10-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' allegations, taken as true, were sufficient to state a plausible claim for conspiracy to fix prices under the Sherman Act, thus surviving the motion to dismiss.
• In re Paincare Holdings Sec. Litig.
  541 F. Supp. 2d 1283· M.D. Fla.· 2008-02-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the amended complaint sufficiently alleged securities fraud, scienter, and causation, thus denying the motion to dismiss.
• Glover v. USA
  380 F. Supp. 2d 1279· M.D. Fla.· 2005-07-26 ·cited 2×
  Plaintiffs Geneva Glover and James Gillins brought a private action under the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) statute seeking to recover Medicare expenditures for smoking-related diseases, alleging that defendants Philip Morris USA and Liggett Group committed battery by exposing p
• Pace v. Platt
  228 F. Supp. 2d 1332· N.D. Fla.· 2002-08-12 ·cited 2×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  The court held that the IRS and its employees are immune from suit for claims related to tax assessment and collection, and that plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
• Gill v. Three Dimension Sys., Inc.
  87 F. Supp. 2d 1278· M.D. Fla.· 2000-02-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it had federal question jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, but lacked personal jurisdiction over two defendants. The court denied dismissal for most claims but dismissed the mismanagement claim.
• Foxx v. Dalton
  46 F. Supp. 2d 1268· M.D. Fla.· 1999-04-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that most of the plaintiff's claims were barred by res judicata, but claims arising from subsequent wrongs were not. The court also granted the defendant's motion for a change of venue.
• Dall v. United States
  42 F. Supp. 2d 1275· M.D. Fla.· 1998-11-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Feres doctrine bars subject matter jurisdiction over a suit brought by a service member injured in an activity incident to service, even if the activity occurred off-base and involved alleged negligence in aircraft maintenance.
• Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. United States
  6 F. Supp. 2d 1346· S.D. Fla.· 1998-03-11 ·cited 2×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  The court held that the Flo-Sun Agreement did not constitute 'major federal action' requiring an EIS under NEPA, and that entering the agreement was a litigation decision not subject to APA notice-and-comment requirements.
• Farabee v. Rider
  995 F. Supp. 1398· M.D. Fla.· 1998-02-13 ·cited 2×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  The court held that a sheriff can be liable for negligence in supervising deputies if the failure to train or supervise creates a foreseeable zone of risk, as such acts are operational, not discretionary, and thus not barred by sovereign immunity.
• Floyd v. Heno
  996 F.2d 429· 1st Cir.· 1993-06-10 ·cited 2×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  The court held that a claim for compensatory relief arising from FDIC's repudiation of a contract is not subject to the administrative claims process under 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d), and thus the district court erred in dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction.
• Wash. Legal Found. v. Mass. BAR Found.
  993 F.2d 962· 1st Cir.· 1993-05-20 ·cited 2×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  The court held that the Massachusetts IOLTA program does not violate the First Amendment rights of speech and association, nor does it constitute a taking of property under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
• Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Scimed Life Sys., Inc.
  988 F.2d 1157· Fed. Cir.· 1993-03-09 ·cited 2×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the cross-complaint for laches under Rule 12(b)(6) because the delay was not demonstrably unreasonable or unexcused, and prejudice was not sufficiently established on the pleadings.
• Hanley Dawson, Jr. v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  977 F.2d 369· 7th Cir.· 1992-10-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' allegations of a binding promise, when viewed in the context of prior dealings and discussions, were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
• McCARTNEY v. First City Bank
  970 F.2d 45· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-28 ·cited 2×
  The validity of the underlying debt does not bar an action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and a plaintiff need not prove the debt is void or voidable to state a claim. The court also found the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts for claims under § 1983 and the Decla
• Gwynedd Props., Inc. v. Lower Gwynedd Twp.
  970 F.2d 1195· 3d Cir.· 1992-07-15 ·cited 2×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  The court held that federal adjudication of most of GPI's claims would not interfere with ongoing state proceedings, thus reversing the district court's dismissal on Younger abstention grounds for those claims.
• J.L. v. Soc. Sec. Admin.
  971 F.2d 260· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-15 ·cited 2×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  The court held that plaintiffs can pursue claims under the Administrative Procedure Act for injunctive and declaratory relief, and under the Rehabilitation Act for damages, as the latter waives sovereign immunity for suits against the government. The district court's dismissal wa
• Russ v. Uppah
  972 F.2d 300· 10th Cir.· 1992-06-19 ·cited 2×·via Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal
  Parole board members are entitled to absolute immunity for actions taken in their official duties, but parole officers are entitled only to qualified immunity for such actions.
• Carroll Olson v. Hart
  965 F.2d 940· 10th Cir.· 1992-06-03 ·cited 2×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Failure To State A Claim)
  The court held that a pro se litigant's complaint, even if styled as a mandamus petition, could be construed as a habeas corpus petition or a Section 1983 claim for deprivation of due process rights, and thus should not have been dismissed on abstention grounds.