Rule 15(a)

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

• Layfield v. Bill Heard Chevrolet Co. & Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp.
  607 F.2d 1097· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-03 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint and properly granted summary judgment on the original counts.
• Loughan v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
  749 F.2d 1519· 11th Cir.· 1985-01-10 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of the plaintiff's drinking habit, granting a directed verdict on the duty to warn, denying a motion to amend the complaint, or in its assessment of costs.
• Jefferson Fourteenth Assocs. v. Wometco de Puerto RICO, Inc.
  695 F.2d 524· 11th Cir.· 1983-01-10 ·cited 31×
  A district court cannot sua sponte dismiss a case on the merits without providing the plaintiff with notice and an opportunity to be heard.
• Farnese v. Bagnasco
  687 F.2d 761· 3d Cir.· 1982-08-31 ·cited 31×
  The court held that there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's refusal to vacate the default judgment.
• DeVASTO v. Faherty
  658 F.2d 859· 1st Cir.· 1981-09-11 ·cited 30×
  The admission of evidence found during an unlawful search, without proper limiting instructions, was not harmless error and requires a new trial. The district court also erred in denying plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint to add the City of Boston as a defendant.
• Hageman v. Signal L. P. GAS, Inc.
  486 F.2d 479· 6th Cir.· 1973-10-31 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the amendment to include the pain and suffering claim related back to the original filing, and that the settlement with a co-defendant did not fully preclude the plaintiff's wrongful death claim against the appellant, but remanded for allocation of settlement
• Asher v. Harrington
  461 F.2d 890· 7th Cir.· 1972-04-13 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the complaint stated a proper federal claim under Section 1983 for arbitrary denial of constitutional rights.
• Neifeld v. Meyer Steinberg
  438 F.2d 423· 3d Cir.· 1971-02-19 ·cited 30×
  Joining a permissive counterclaim with jurisdictional defenses does not waive those defenses if the counterclaim is later withdrawn without leave of court.
• In re Engle Cases 4432 Individual Tobacco v. Various Tobacco Cos.
  767 F.3d 1082· 11th Cir.· 2014-09-10 ·cited 29×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of 588 personal injury cases filed on behalf of deceased smokers, 160 loss of consortium cases derived from those personal injury cases, and 2 wrongful death cases filed outside the statute of limitations. The Wilner Firm filed these ca
• Jones v. Counselor Hamelman
  869 F.2d 1023· 7th Cir.· 1989-02-22 ·cited 29×
  The magistrate did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion to amend the complaint, excluding certain testimony, or denying the inmate's presence at trial, and the factual findings were not clearly erroneous.
• Auster OIL & GAS, Inc. v. Matilda Gray Stream
  764 F.2d 381· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-01 ·cited 29×
  The court held that Auster's original complaint stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of Fourth Amendment rights and that the district court should have allowed Auster to amend its complaint.
• Sellers v. The Regents OF the Univ. OF Cal.
  432 F.2d 493· 9th Cir.· 1970-09-17 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint, refusing to convene a three-judge court, as there was no genuine threat of irreparable harm or chilling effect on First Amendment rights to warrant injunctive relief.
• Augustine Andrews, Sr. v. Bechtel Power Corp. & Local 276
  780 F.2d 124· 1st Cir.· 1985-12-19 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification due to failure to meet the numerosity requirement and in allowing the plaintiff to proceed pro se.
• Lettie D. Evans v. Syracuse City Sch. Dist.
  704 F.2d 44· 2d Cir.· 1983-03-25 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting the defendant leave to amend its answer to assert res judicata nearly three years after the initial answer, on the eve of trial, and without compelling justification for the delay.
• DOE v. Harris
  696 F.2d 109· D.C. Cir.· 1982-12-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint as moot because the defendants failed to meet the heavy burden of demonstrating that there was no reasonable expectation of recurrence of the alleged violation and that its effects had been completely and ir
• Lyons v. Bd. OF Educ. OF Charleston Reorganized Sch. Dist. NO. 1 OF Miss. Cnty.
  523 F.2d 340· 8th Cir.· 1975-09-03 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding racial discrimination in her non-renewal, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint with a new cause of acti
• Rural Fire Prot. Co. v. Hepp
  366 F.2d 355· 9th Cir.· 1966-09-16 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the employer's fire protection services for businesses engaged in interstate commerce brought its employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and that the amendment to the complaint related back to the original filing date. However, the court remanded for in
• Otto v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co.
  814 F.2d 1127· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-08 ·cited 27×
  The court held that VALIC's fixed annuity is an exempt insurance product under the Securities Act of 1933 and not an employee benefit plan under ERISA, affirming summary judgment on these claims. It reversed dismissal of conspiracy claims related to ERISA and the Securities Act,
• Lord v. Fairway Elec. Corp.
  223 F. Supp. 2d 1270· M.D. Fla.· 2002-07-01 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint should be denied due to undue delay, prejudice, and futility, and the defendant's motion to exclude expert testimony should be granted because the expert's opinion was unreliable.
• Goulding v. Feinglass
  811 F.2d 1099· 7th Cir.· 1987-02-04 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the plaintiff's claims for lack of federal jurisdiction and properly denied his motion to amend the complaint.
• Ondis v. Barrows
  538 F.2d 904· 1st Cir.· 1976-06-25 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the federal claim and the refusal to allow amendment of the complaint, but reversed the dismissal of the state law claim, remanding it to state court.
• Literature, Inc. v. Quinn
  482 F.2d 372· 1st Cir.· 1973-07-26 ·cited 26×
  A single district judge lacks jurisdiction to deny injunctive or declaratory relief or dismiss a complaint when a substantial constitutional question is raised and equitable relief is formally alleged, requiring a three-judge court.
• Raisa R. Mayes v. Leipziger
  729 F.2d 605· 9th Cir.· 1984-03-27 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint without leave to amend, as the plaintiff had a right to amend her complaint as a matter of course or, alternatively, leave to amend should have been freely granted.
• Boda v. United States
  698 F.2d 1174· 11th Cir.· 1983-02-22 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims against the United States were barred by sovereign immunity and the Federal Tort Claims Act, and that the district court should have dismissed on jurisdictional grounds rather than for failure to state a claim.
• Buder v. Merrill Lynch
  644 F.2d 690· 8th Cir.· 1981-02-19 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying leave to amend the complaint, but affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the federal securities claim due to the statute of limitations.
• Russell v. RAY
  780 F.2d 636· 7th Cir.· 1985-12-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under federal securities laws because their claims primarily involved breaches of state fiduciary duties and they had access to state law remedies. However, the court reversed the dismissal of RICO claims, allowing plaintiffs
• Aladdin's Castle, Inc. v. The City OF Mesquite
  630 F.2d 1029· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the ordinance's "connection with criminal elements" language is void for vagueness, violating due process, but affirmed the district court's upholding of the age restriction.
• Groninger v. Merrill E. Davison
  364 F.2d 638· 8th Cir.· 1966-08-26 ·cited 24×
  A federal court in a diversity action must apply state law to determine when an action is commenced for the purpose of tolling the statute of limitations, even if the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide a different method for commencement.
• Dist. Council 47 v. Bradley
  795 F.2d 310· 3d Cir.· 1986-07-09 ·cited 23×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority erred in excusing deficient pleadings and the failure to seek leave to amend, asserting that civil rights claims require specific factual allegations tying defendants to the alleged deprivations.
• Topalian v. Ehrman
  954 F.2d 1125· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to set forth specific facts establishing a genuine issue for trial, and thus affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
• Cranberg v. Consumers Union OF U.S., Inc.
  756 F.2d 382· 5th Cir.· 1985-04-01 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the district court's findings of no liability for all defendants, holding that the articles and statements were substantially true and that the plaintiff failed to prove actual malice where applicable.
• In re Romulus Cmty. Schs. v. Romulus Cmty. Schs.
  729 F.2d 431· 6th Cir.· 1984-03-07 ·cited 22×
  A district court has the discretion to remand pendent state law claims to state court after the federal basis for removal jurisdiction has been eliminated, even if the remand is not based on a specific statutory ground for remand.
• Gardner v. S. Ry. Sys.
  675 F.2d 949· 7th Cir.· 1982-04-22 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the exclusion of prior accident evidence and the amendment of the answer, but reversed and remanded the denial of costs.
• DOE v. McMILLAN
  566 F.2d 713· D.C. Cir.· 1977-07-29 ·cited 22×
• Coates v. Ill. State Bd. OF Educ.
  559 F.2d 445· 7th Cir.· 1977-06-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the complaint failed to state a federal claim because it did not allege segregative intent, which is required for both Title VI and constitutional challenges to school segregation. Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction over the pendent state law claim.
• Farkas v. Tex. Instruments, Inc.
  429 F.2d 849· 1st Cir.· 1970-07-10 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the action against Texas Instruments (TI) for lack of jurisdiction, but reversed the denial of leave to amend the complaint against Ling-Temco-Vought (LTV).
• W. C. Shepherd Co., Inc. v. Royal Indem. Co.
  192 F.2d 710· 5th Cir.· 1951-11-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court erred in striking the answer and counterclaim without affording the appellants an opportunity to amend, as the answer raised a justiciable issue regarding the surety's alleged breach of contract through unreasonable delay in making advances.
• Ermel I. Coon v. Ga. Pac. Corp.
  829 F.2d 1563· 11th Cir.· 1987-10-21 ·cited 21×
  The court held that a plaintiff cannot litigate claims not pleaded in the complaint, even if mentioned in a pretrial stipulation or related to an EEOC charge, and that class certification requires meeting specific Rule 23(a) criteria.
• Staggers v. Otto Gerdau Co., Inc.
  359 F.2d 292· 2d Cir.· 1966-04-11 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the orders were appealable under a practical construction of finality and that the district court should have granted the motions for substitution and amendment of the complaint.
• Instituto De Prevision Militar v. Lehman Bros., Inc.
  485 F. Supp. 2d 1340· S.D. Fla.· 2007-05-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied because the case was a 'covered class action' preempted by SLUSA, and the amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice for failing to comply with prior orders.
• DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton
  833 F.2d 183· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-27 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint without providing a justifying reason, as such denial is inconsistent with the spirit of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Skevofilax v. Sergeant William Quigley
  810 F.2d 378· 3d Cir.· 1987-01-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised ancillary jurisdiction over the police officers' indemnification claim against the township under Rule 69.
• Hung Hy Nguyen dba Mekong Mkt. v. United States
  792 F.2d 1500· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the prior mandates did not preclude the district court from allowing amendments to the pleadings to raise new issues. However, in Bertrand's case, the district court erred by failing to enter summary judgment for the government as previously ordered.
• C. Roger Youmans, Jr., M.D. v. Simon
  791 F.2d 341· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-06 ·cited 20×
  The court held that some real estate venture interests were not securities, but one was potentially a security, and civil RICO claims should be reinstated. The denial of a motion to amend the complaint was affirmed.
• McCARTIN v. Norton
  674 F.2d 1317· 9th Cir.· 1982-04-22 ·cited 20×
  The court holds that McCartin stated a claim only for nonmonetary relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) for arbitrary and capricious agency conduct, rejecting claims under the First Amendment, APA, and for damages.
• Jordan v. Cnty. OF LOS Angeles
  669 F.2d 1311· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a class representative who has voluntarily settled their individual claims may still be able to represent the class if they can provide vigorous advocacy, despite lacking a personal stake.
• Chancery Clerk OF Chickasaw Cnty. v. Wallace
  646 F.2d 151· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-26 ·cited 20×
  The court held that individuals involuntarily confined in state mental institutions may bring a § 1983 action challenging the constitutionality of the commitment procedures, and that abstention was not appropriate. However, the court vacated the certification of the defendant cla
• Hayden v. Ford Motor Co.
  497 F.2d 1292· 6th Cir.· 1974-05-31 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the defendant waived the statute of limitations defense by failing to plead it in a timely manner, and thus the district court's summary judgment based on that defense must be reversed.
• Richardson Greenshields Sec., Inc. v. Mui-Hin LAU
  825 F.2d 647· 2d Cir.· 1987-07-30 ·cited 19×
  The court held that an order denying a motion to amend a pleading is not immediately appealable as a final decision or under the collateral order doctrine, but the attempted appeal would be treated as a petition for a writ of mandamus.
• Jennette Carter v. Supermarkets Gen. Corp.
  684 F.2d 187· 1st Cir.· 1982-08-06 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the § 1981 claim due to the statute of limitations and in denying the motion to amend the complaint to add a Title VII claim.