Rule 15(a)

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

• Florida Evergreen Foliage v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.
  336 F. Supp. 2d 1239· S.D. Fla.· 2004-07-26 ·cited 18×
  The court denied motions to amend, granted summary judgment for DuPont on fraud claims, denied summary judgment for DuPont on breach of settlement claims, and granted motions to dismiss, closing the cases.
• Magnus Elecs., Inc. v. LA Republica Argentina
  830 F.2d 1396· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-08 ·cited 18×
  Res judicata bars the current suit because it involves the same cause of action and parties as a prior suit dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the additional allegations were available previously. Rule 11 sanctions are reversed and remanded for reconsideration
• Hannah v. City OF Overland
  795 F.2d 1385· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in excluding alibi evidence, deposition testimony, or denying leave to amend, and that any error in admitting prior convictions was harmless.
• Scott v. Schmidt
  773 F.2d 160· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed Scott's civil rights suit because the defendants were immune from suit and Scott failed to state a claim.
• Allen v. Veterans Admin.
  749 F.2d 1386· 9th Cir.· 1984-12-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the United States did not receive sufficient notice of the original complaint within the statute of limitations period to allow the amended complaint naming the United States as a defendant to relate back.
• Polin v. DUN & Bradstreet, Inc.
  511 F.2d 875· 10th Cir.· 1975-02-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying leave to amend the complaint based on a mistaken belief that the statute of limitations had run, and that the two-year statute of limitations applies to all transactions.
• Voltmann v. United Fruit Co.
  147 F.2d 514· 2d Cir.· 1945-02-05 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge believes the jury charge correctly applied an objective standard of negligence, and the verdict should be upheld despite a minor linguistic ambiguity.
• Def. Indus. v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co.
  938 F.2d 502· 4th Cir.· 1991-07-09 ·cited 17×
  The Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury determination of the amount of punitive damages, and a district court cannot reduce such an award via judgment notwithstanding the verdict. However, a district court's conditional grant of a new trial on the amount of punitive damages may b
• Lockman Found. v. Evangelical Alliance Mission
  930 F.2d 764· 9th Cir.· 1991-04-18 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case on forum non conveniens grounds because Japan is an adequate alternative forum and the balance of private and public interests favors dismissal. The court also held that denying leave to am
• A. J. Indus., Inc. v. United States Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal.
  503 F.2d 384· 9th Cir.· 1974-09-12 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the ability to raise the subject matter of a suit by counterclaim in the transferee district generally satisfies the "where it might have been brought" requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), even if leave of court is required.
• Letizia v. Prudential Bache Sec., Inc.
  802 F.2d 1185· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiff should have been allowed to amend his complaint to challenge the validity of the arbitration clause, and that federal securities claims under Section 10(b) and 17(a) are not arbitrable.
• Ross v. Franzen
  777 F.2d 1216· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-20 ·cited 16×
  The court should not sanction one prisoner suing on behalf of another, and the case should be dismissed.
• Bamm, Inc. v. GAF Corp.
  651 F.2d 389· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying Bamm's motion for leave to amend its complaint.
• Jackson v. The Am. BAR Ass'n
  538 F.2d 829· 9th Cir.· 1976-06-03 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, as the ABA's actions did not constitute state action under the Fifth Amendment.
• Joiner Sys., Inc. v. AVM Corp., Inc.
  517 F.2d 45· 3d Cir.· 1975-06-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on pre-repudiation damages because the issue was neither properly pleaded nor tried with the parties' consent.
• Carson v. Allied News Co.
  511 F.2d 22· 7th Cir.· 1975-02-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while 28 U.S.C. § 1653 might allow amendments to cure jurisdictional defects, this specific case is not appropriate for the appellate court to dismiss a non-diverse party.
• Wilburn v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. OF ST. Louis
  492 F.2d 1288· 8th Cir.· 1974-03-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint without a justifying reason, despite the plaintiff's good faith contention of estoppel.
• Vickery v. Fisher Governor Co.
  417 F.2d 466· 9th Cir.· 1969-10-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the contract's termination clause was unambiguous and that the parol evidence rule barred extrinsic evidence to alter its terms, thus affirming the grant of summary judgment.
• Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Abbott
  130 F.2d 40· 4th Cir.· 1942-08-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the insurer was bound by the prior judgment against the bank, as the defenses raised were either previously litigated or insufficiently pleaded.
• McCOOL v. Strata OIL Co.
  972 F.2d 1452· 7th Cir.· 1992-10-26 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the Illinois statute of limitations, as it existed on June 19, 1991, applies to the securities fraud claim due to Congressional action and the investors' reliance on prior precedent. The court also found no evidence of fraudulent concealment sufficient to toll
• Andrews v. Metro N. Commuter R.R. Co.
  882 F.2d 705· 2d Cir.· 1989-08-16 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to admit the original complaint into evidence and by allowing an unqualified expert to testify on ultimate issues of negligence and legal standards of care, requiring a new trial.
• Glater v. ELI Lilly & Co.
  712 F.2d 735· 1st Cir.· 1983-07-27 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the defendant did not waive its right to raise the personal jurisdiction defense, and the pendency of a class action did not preclude dismissal. The court deferred final decision pending the Supreme Court's ruling in a related case.
• Guam Inv. Co., Inc. v. Cent. Bldg., Inc.
  288 F.2d 19· 9th Cir.· 1961-03-01 ·cited 15×
  The court held that a district court cannot dismiss a complaint on the grounds of res judicata by taking judicial notice of its own records in a prior, distinct case without those records being introduced into evidence.
• Miller v. Glanz
  948 F.2d 1562· 10th Cir.· 1991-11-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a district court's consideration of matters outside the pleadings on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is reversible error unless harmless, and that witnesses have absolute immunity from civil liability for conspiracy to present perjured testimony.
• Commercial Credit Equip. Corp. v. Stamps
  920 F.2d 1361· 7th Cir.· 1990-12-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while compensatory damages for fraud and conversion were supported by the evidence, punitive damages and prejudgment interest were improperly awarded. Costs for videotaping depositions were allowed, but not for their transcripts.
• Amendola v. Bayer
  907 F.2d 760· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the defendant on claims of breach of oral agreement and breach of fiduciary duty, nor in denying the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint.
• Hoover v. Blue Cross AND Blue Shield OF Alabama
  855 F.2d 1538· 11th Cir.· 1988-09-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendants' interpretation of the co-payment provision was reasonable and entitled them to summary judgment, and that the district court did not err in denying leave to amend the complaint.
• Driscoll v. Smith Barney
  815 F.2d 655· 11th Cir.· 1987-04-28 ·cited 14×
  Federal securities law claims and federal RICO claims are not subject to mandatory arbitration, while state law claims are. Challenges to the validity of arbitration agreements are generally for the arbitrator, not the court.
• Senza-Gel Corp. v. Seiffhart
  803 F.2d 661· Fed. Cir.· 1986-10-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that allowing a defendant to amend its pleadings to add patent misuse and antitrust defenses seven months after a jury verdict, without good cause shown, constituted an abuse of discretion.
• Martin v. Associated Truck Lines, Inc.
  801 F.2d 246· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that state common law claims for negligent and intentional misrepresentation are preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act when they are inextricably intertwined with the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.
• Mosher v. Kane
  784 F.2d 1385· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint, alleging violations of federal securities laws, was improperly dismissed for failure to state a claim, and that leave to amend should be granted.
• McDONALD v. Hall
  579 F.2d 120· 1st Cir.· 1978-07-26 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment regarding religious services but remanded the denial of the motion to amend for further consideration.
• McARTHUR v. S. Airways, Inc.
  556 F.2d 298· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-22 ·cited 14×
• Lloyd v. United Liquors Corp.
  203 F.2d 789· 6th Cir.· 1953-04-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction and in denying the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint, as the alleged conspiracy to fix liquor prices could substantially affect interstate commerce.
• Pattiz v. Schwartz
  386 F.2d 300· 8th Cir.· 1968-01-15 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court had the power under Rule 60(a) to correct the record to reflect the nunc pro tunc filing of an amended complaint, as the omission was an oversight or clerical error.
• Oliver v. Resolution Tr. Corp.
  955 F.2d 583· 8th Cir.· 1992-01-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine and its statutory counterpart preclude claims based on alleged oral side agreements that were not in writing and properly executed. The court also found no abuse of discretion in dismissing the claims with prejudice without leave to
• Curtis W. Caine, Jr., M.D. v. M.D. Hardy, M.D.
  943 F.2d 1406· 5th Cir.· 1991-09-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and in dismissing his suit under Rule 12(b)(6) without accepting his allegations of bias as true.
• Contact Lumber Co. v. P.T. Moges Shipping Co., Ltd.
  918 F.2d 1446· 9th Cir.· 1990-11-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case on the grounds of forum non conveniens, as an adequate alternative forum existed and private and public interest factors favored dismissal.
• Newark Branch v. Town of Harrison
  907 F.2d 1408· 3d Cir.· 1990-07-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the district court properly dismissed the original complaint for lack of standing, it erred in denying the motion for leave to amend without considering the merits of the proposed amendment.
• Curtis W. Caine, Jr., M.D. v. Hardy, M.D.
  905 F.2d 858· 5th Cir.· 1990-06-27 ·cited 12×
• Safir v. United States Lines Inc.
  792 F.2d 19· 2d Cir.· 1986-05-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that section 810 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 does not provide an implied private right of action for restitution of subsidies paid by the government, and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint and modification of the injunction against futu
• Atl. Purchasers, Inc. v. Aircraft Sales, Inc.
  705 F.2d 712· 4th Cir.· 1983-04-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district judge erred in denying the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to seek treble damages under the North Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, as the jury's findings of fraud established a violation of the Act and treble damages are an automat
• 222 E. Chestnut St. Corp. v. Lakefront Realty Corp.
  256 F.2d 513· 7th Cir.· 1958-06-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a plaintiff who appeals a dismissal, thereby electing to stand on their complaint, cannot subsequently seek to dismiss the appeal to amend the complaint with new theories not related to jurisdiction. The court also held that the cited statute does not grant a
• Fern v. United States
  213 F.2d 674· 9th Cir.· 1954-05-18 ·cited 12×
• Mitchell v. Wright
  154 F.2d 924· 5th Cir.· 1946-04-24 ·cited 12×
  A state's judicial appeal process for voter registration denials is not a purely administrative remedy that must be exhausted before federal court intervention.
• Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Indus. Am. Corp.
  289 F.3d 1268· 11th Cir.· 2002-04-23 ·cited 11×
  The concurring judge believes that a plaintiff who fails to amend their complaint in the district court, despite ample opportunity and notice of deficiencies, should not be granted a remand on appeal for that purpose. The judge argues that district courts should not be required t
• Thompson-El v. Jones
  876 F.2d 66· 8th Cir.· 1989-06-01 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant leave to file a second amended complaint, as the motion was untimely and would have caused undue delay and prejudice.
• Merritt v. Cnty. OF LOS Angeles
  875 F.2d 765· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-24 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the motion to amend based on federal notice requirements, and that the grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the County was proper due to insufficient evidence of a policy of inadequate training.
• Kiser v. Gen. Elec. Corp.
  831 F.2d 423· 3d Cir.· 1987-10-14 ·cited 11×
  The district court erred by dismissing the complaint without considering the plaintiff's motions for leave to amend, as leave to amend should be freely given and defective jurisdictional allegations can be amended.
• Carbalan v. Vaughn
  760 F.2d 662· 5th Cir.· 1985-05-20 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint, the city was not liable for the judge's judicial acts, and the plaintiff did not prevail to be entitled to attorney's fees.