Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure

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

• White v. Eslinger
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-14
  The court held that a motion to dismiss specific claims in a multi-defendant case should be construed as a motion to amend the complaint under Rule 15, not dismissed under Rule 41(a).
• Hickman v. Facebook/Meta
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-05-12
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims are barred by res judicata because a prior judgment on the merits was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction involving the same parties and the same causes of action.
• Hirsch v. Palermo
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-30
  A party cannot amend a complaint after dismissal and final judgment; they must seek relief under Rule 59(e) or 60(b), which the plaintiffs failed to adequately justify.
• Brewton v. Carnival Corp.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-03-17
  An amended complaint is deemed timely filed if the motion to amend was filed within the statute of limitations, even if the court ruled on the motion and the amended complaint was filed after the statute of limitations expired, especially when the initial motion was denied due to
• The Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Gouda
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-14
  The court held that service by publication was proper after the plaintiff dismissed its damages claim, and that a notice of action requiring an answer was not deficient.
• KMF Servs., LLC v. Shift4 Payments, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-27
  The court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint, finding no apparent reason to deny it and deferring futility arguments to later dispositive motions.
• Awolowo v. Carlisle
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-12-23
  The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
• Balint v. Osceola Cnty.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-07
  A motion to dismiss less than an entire action under Rule 41(a)(2) is improper; the proper procedure is to seek leave to amend the complaint under Rule 15.
• Alternative Materials LLC v. TCH Constr. Grp. Inc
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-09-12
  The court recommended dismissing TCH's counterclaims for failure to prosecute and granting AM's motion to amend its complaint to dismiss claims against TCH, and entering final judgment against Monroe.
• Robinson v. Truist Bank
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-11
  The Court held that the Verified Complaint constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading and must be stricken.
• Okla. Apple LLC v. The United States
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-10
  The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading and must be stricken.
• John Hancock Life Ins. Co. (U.S.A.) v. McBath
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-06
  The court held that the defendants failed to establish good cause to modify the scheduling order and amend their pleadings after the deadline had passed.
• Hamman v. Univ. of Cent. Fla. Bd. of Trs.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-23
  The court held that the plaintiff's objections were overruled, his motion to amend was denied, and his amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
• Dewar v. Direct Interactions, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-21
  The Court held that the Defendant's counterclaim constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading and must be stricken.
• Jones v. The Lamar Co., L.L.C.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-13
  The court held that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because they invite review and rejection of state court judgments.
• LensDigital, LLC v. Rife
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-07
  The Court holds that the Plaintiff's Complaint constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading and is therefore stricken.
• Renaissance Specialty Ins., LLC v. Landrum
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-06
  The Court strikes the plaintiffs' Verified Complaint because it constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading.
• Miller v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-17
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add a non-diverse party and denied the motion to remand, finding the request was made too late and lacked good cause.
• Ramdeo v. Becerra
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-17
  The Court strikes the Complaint because it constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading and orders the Plaintiff to file a corrected complaint.
• Dunn v. Mojo Fam., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-05-16
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading and must be stricken.
• Lopez v. Consumer Safety Tech. LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-05-03
  The court held that a motion to stay discovery should be denied when the case will inevitably proceed regardless of the outcome of pending dispositive motions.
• Adeshile v. Jacksonville Transp. Auth.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-05-01
  The court held that the plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint, specifically Counts I and III, constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading and dismissed those claims with prejudice. The remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.
• Dennis v. Crete Carrier Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-04-05
  The Court holds that the plaintiff's complaint is an impermissible shotgun pleading and strikes it.
• Kanthal Corp. v. Custom Wire Prods., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-06
  The Court held that the plaintiff's complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and must be stricken.
• Thomas v. Credence Res. Mgmt., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-02-27
  The Court strikes the pro se plaintiff's complaint as an impermissible shotgun pleading and grants her leave to amend.
• The United States v. Up-Side Mgmt. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-02-13
  The court held that the First Amended Complaint constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading and must be stricken.
• Grigg v. Fid. Nat'l Fin., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-01-03
  The Court holds that the Class Action Complaint is an impermissible shotgun pleading and strikes it.
• Burgess v. Palm Beach Cnty.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-11-09
  The court held that while some claims against supervisory officials for deliberate indifference and failure to supervise could proceed, claims against the Sheriff's Office and County were dismissed, and certain supervisory liability claims were duplicative or failed to state a cl
• Chapman v. Wyeth Pharms., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-10-26
  The Court holds that a shotgun pleading is unacceptable and must be stricken, requiring the plaintiff to replead.
• Benavides v. Tesla, Inc
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-10-25
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish good cause for modifying the deadline to amend pleadings after it had passed.
• Brantley v. CSX Transp., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-10-23
  The court held that the amended complaint was an egregious shotgun pleading and failed to comply with local rules, warranting it to be stricken.
• ABG 19 LLC v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-10-13
  The court accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss Count 2 as duplicative of Count 1, and denied leave to amend as futile.
• Philippeaux v. Miami Apts. Invs., LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-09-05
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state claims for retaliation under the ADA, civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, dismissing these counts with prejudice.
• Campbell v. Youth Opportunity Invs., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-08-11
  The Court holds that the Plaintiff's Complaint constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading and must be stricken.
• Johnson v. The Preserves at Stonebriar Homeowner's Ass'n, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-08-01
  The federal district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review a state court judgment under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, even when a party seeks to amend their complaint.
• Ripley Ent., Inc. v. Pierce, Jr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-07-31
  The Court holds that the plaintiff's complaint constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading and must be stricken.
• Reign RMC, LLC v. Pro 1 Elec., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-07-25
  The Court held that the Complaint constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading and must be stricken.
• Norvilus-Foreste v. Walmart Stores E., LP
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-06-28
  The court held that a plaintiff's motion to amend a complaint to add a non-diverse defendant after removal should be denied if the plaintiff knew the defendant's identity before removal and the proposed claims against the new defendant are unlikely to succeed.
• Protective Life Ins. Co. v. Jacobs
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-06-23
  The court granted Richard G. Jacobs' motion to intervene, finding it timely and that he stated a valid claim. The court denied the Estate's motion to amend its pleadings, finding it untimely and futile due to lack of standing. The court also granted-in-part and denied-in-part Pro
• McGarrity v. Fla. Health Scis. Ctr., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-05-23
  Removal was timely because the thirty-day period began when the amended complaint became operative, not when it was prematurely filed. A subsequent abandonment of federal claims does not divest the court of jurisdiction established at the time of removal.
• Henderson v. Blue Diamond Growers
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-05-09
  The Court held that the plaintiff's Class Action Complaint constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading and must be stricken.
• Acosta v. Cook Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-05-05
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading and failed to comply with local rules, requiring it to be stricken.
• Brito Solis v. TD Bank USA
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-04-20
  The court granted the voluntary dismissal of Uplift, LLC, but denied the request to correct service on Uplift, Inc., requiring an amended complaint.
• Norvilus-Foreste v. Walmart Stores E., LP
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-04-12
  The court held that allegations of residency alone are insufficient to establish citizenship for diversity jurisdiction purposes.
• O'Neal v. Am. Shaman Franchise Sys., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-02-22
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion to apply the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client and work-product privileges.
• Lockhart v. GreyHound Lines Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-01-11
  A motion to amend a complaint to add a nondiverse defendant after removal does not automatically require remand if the plaintiff failed to disclose the diversity-destroying nature of the amendment, allowing the court to reconsider joinder.
• Cruz v. Ok2 Constr., LLC.
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-12-28
  The court held that a complaint alleging diversity jurisdiction is insufficient if it fails to properly plead the citizenship of all parties, including the members of an LLC, and that amendment would be futile if the plaintiff is a member of the defendant LLC, thus destroying com
• Martinez v. Miami Child's. Health Sys., Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-12-20
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for the untimely request, and granted in part the defendants' motion for an extension of time to serve expert disclosures.
• Swinford v. 360 Booth Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-11-21
  The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing the Second Amended Complaint without prejudice due to shotgun pleading and withdrawn claims.
• Anderson v. State
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-11-15
  The court denied the plaintiff's motions for clerk's default, permanent injunction, and summary judgment, and granted the plaintiff's motion to remove the demand for jury trial and monetary damages. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss, d