-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-08-22
The court held that a plaintiff's second amended complaint, filed without leave of court after the deadline, would be stricken and leave to amend denied.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-07-26
The court held that a summons served after a case was dismissed and while administratively closed, which failed to substantially comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, is procedurally deficient and must be quashed.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-07-25
The Court held that the plaintiff's complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and must be stricken.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-07-15
The Court denied the Plaintiff's emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, as well as her request to amend the complaint.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-05-26
The court held that the plaintiffs' allegations sufficiently stated claims for retaliation, disparate treatment, and retaliatory hostile work environment, and that individual defendants could be held liable under § 1981.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-04-29
The court held that the plaintiff's filings did not establish subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore, the case must be dismissed.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-04-25
The court denied the plaintiff's motions, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the third amended complaint for failing to comply with federal rules regarding shotgun pleadings.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-03-25
The court held that a complaint must properly establish subject matter jurisdiction and avoid "shotgun pleading" to proceed.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-03-21
Timothy John Miers challenged his federal convictions for kidnapping and interstate domestic violence through a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective and that his sentence violated double jeopardy protections. The district court denied
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-03-16
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading and must be stricken.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-03-14
The Court holds that the Plaintiff's complaint is an impermissible shotgun pleading and strikes it.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-10-15
The court held that the complaint was deficient because it failed to properly allege diversity jurisdiction and constituted a shotgun pleading.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-10-06
The court held that the complaint failed to adequately establish diversity jurisdiction and constituted a shotgun pleading.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-10-05
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint because all proposed amendments were futile.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-07-23
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed for insufficient service of process and for being a shotgun pleading, but granted leave to amend.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-07-20
The Court held that the plaintiff's complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and must be stricken.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-03-26
The court held that the complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and lacked sufficient allegations to establish subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-02-26
The Court strikes the Class Action Complaint because it constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading and orders the Plaintiff to file a corrected complaint. The Court also directs Plaintiff to correct the inadequate jurisdictional allegations.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-02-12
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and struck it, granting leave to amend.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-01-11
The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion for reconsideration, finding the counterclaim was abandoned but granting leave to amend to reassert it.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-01-11
The Court requires parties to provide sufficient information to determine diversity jurisdiction, as the amended complaint's allegations regarding a new defendant's citizenship are insufficient.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-12-21
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and struck it, ordering the plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-12-15
The Court strikes the complaint because it is an impermissible shotgun pleading and fails to sufficiently allege subject matter jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-12-10
The Court held that the Class Action Complaint constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading and was therefore stricken.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-12-09
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint was a shotgun pleading and failed to state claims for excessive force, deliberate indifference to medical needs, and ADA violations, warranting dismissal.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-10-19
The court held that the plaintiff's pro se complaint failed to state claims for unreasonable search, sexual assault, retaliation, and due process violations.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-09-08
The Court strikes the Plaintiff's complaint because it constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading and orders Plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-09-04
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and must be stricken.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-08-03
The Court held that the plaintiff's complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and must be stricken.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-07-08
The Court holds that the plaintiff's complaint constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading and must be stricken.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-05-28
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to adequately allege diversity jurisdiction and constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-05-14
The court denied Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend its complaint to add a party defendant because the motion was filed after the deadline and Plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause or diligence.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-05-12
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and failed to comply with procedural requirements for injunctive relief.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-05-04
The Court held that the Complaint constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading and ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint correcting the identified deficiencies.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-03-25
The court held that the amended complaint failed to state sufficient factual allegations for FLSA claims and that state law claims would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction after federal claims were dismissed.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-03-17
The Court held that the plaintiff's complaint constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading and must be stricken.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-03-04
The court held that the petitioner's objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation were overruled on the merits, and that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel failed to establish deficient performance or prejudice.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-02-11
The court granted the defendant's motion for leave to amend its answer and affirmative defenses, finding good cause for the untimely filing and that the proposed amendments were neither futile nor inadequately pled.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-01-03
The Seminole Tribe of Florida is entitled to tribal sovereign immunity, and thus dismissed from the action. Claims involving internal church governance are non-justiciable.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-12-26
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under Section 1983 because he did not allege facts showing a deprivation of a constitutional right or municipal liability.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-11-22
The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading and must be stricken.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-10-17
The Court strikes the Complaint because it constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading and orders Plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
-
810 F. Supp. 2d 815·
S.D. Fla.·
2013-07-24
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add a non-diverse party because the primary purpose appeared to be defeating diversity jurisdiction, and the plaintiff had been dilatory and would not be significantly prejudiced.
-
1990 WL 15437·
S.D. Fla.·
2013-02-14
The court held that a plaintiff's motion to amend a complaint to add a non-diverse defendant after removal, for the purpose of destroying diversity jurisdiction, should be denied when the plaintiff was dilatory and will not be significantly prejudiced by the denial.
-
370 F. Supp. 2d 1201·
M.D. Fla.·
2005-01-10
A district court held that damages for emotional distress are available as compensatory relief in Fair Labor Standards Act retaliation claims, rejecting the defendant's argument that ADEA precedent prohibiting such damages should apply equally to FLSA claims. The court reasoned t
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2003-10-14
The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint, finding that justice required permitting the amendment. The court determined that the proposed amendments related back to the date of the original filing and that the defendants would not be unduly prejudiced.
-
279 F. Supp. 2d 1250·
M.D. Fla.·
2003-08-07
The court held that Chevron's motion for summary judgment based on res judicata should be granted because the current claims arise from the same nucleus of operative facts as the prior settled action and could have been brought then.
-
979 F. Supp. 2d 247·
M.D. Fla.·
2000-03-17
The court denied the defendant's motion for leave to amend its affirmative defenses because the defendant failed to demonstrate good cause for the delay.
-
997 F.2d 94·
5th Cir.·
1993-08-05
Hibernia is precluded from relitigating its entitlement to post-petition interest, attorney's fees, and costs under principles of issue preclusion (collateral estoppel).
-
921 F.2d 421·
2d Cir.·
1990-12-07
The court held that New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 205(a) can apply to extend the time for refiling an asbestos personal injury action even if the original suit lacked subject matter jurisdiction.