Rule 15(a)

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

• Cibran Enters., Inc. v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc.
  365 F. Supp. 2d 1241· S.D. Fla.· 2005-02-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the corporate plaintiff lacked standing to sue for breach of contract due to an invalid assignment, but granted leave to substitute the individual who should have brought the suit.
• Dannebrog Rederi AS v. M/Y True Dream
  146 F. Supp. 2d 1307· S.D. Fla.· 2001-02-28 ·cited 10×
  The court denied Underwriters' motion for leave to amend their complaint to add Rule B allegations, finding that granting the amendment would unduly prejudice Ashlar and potential buyers.
• Scattergood v. Perelman
  945 F.2d 618· 3d Cir.· 1991-09-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction is moot because the merger has occurred, and that the plaintiffs' federal securities claims based on a misleading proxy statement and pre-merger misrepresentations in a freeze-out merger are barred by the
• Villa v. City OF Chicago
  924 F.2d 629· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the Title VII and implied contract claims, nor in denying leave to amend the complaint.
• Ricketts v. Midwest Nat'l Bank
  874 F.2d 1177· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a district court must first assess the substantiality of federal claims to determine subject matter jurisdiction before considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and that sua sponte dismissals require notice and an opportunity
• Mills v. DES ARC Convalescent Home
  872 F.2d 823· 8th Cir.· 1989-04-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend or in admitting evidence for the Title VII claim, but remanded the Section 1981 claim to determine if new defendants were in privity with original defendants for res judicata purposes.
• Brisk v. City of Miami Beach
  709 F. Supp. 1146· S.D. Fla.· 1989-04-07 ·cited 10×
  A motion to dismiss is rendered moot by the filing of an answer, but the court may treat the arguments as a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
• Jarvis v. Regan
  833 F.2d 149· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-27 ·cited 10×
  A plaintiff cannot state a RICO claim if their injury is personal or political, rather than to business or property.
• Quartana v. Utterback
  789 F.2d 1297· 8th Cir.· 1986-04-30 ·cited 10×
  The notice of appeal was timely filed, and the plaintiff stated valid claims for libel and tortious interference with contractual relations.
• Delo H. Caspary v. The La. Land & Exploration Co.
  725 F.2d 189· 2d Cir.· 1984-01-05 ·cited 10×
  An appellate court has jurisdiction to permit a plaintiff to amend their complaint to delete remaining untried claims, thereby creating a final judgment for appellate review.
• Richardson v. United States & Don's Chem. Co., Inc.
  336 F.2d 265· 9th Cir.· 1964-09-09 ·cited 10×
  The appeal must be dismissed because the orders appealed from were not final decisions and the appeal was premature.
• Purcell v. City of Fort Lauderdale
  753 F. Supp. 3d 1308· S.D. Fla.· 2025-07-02 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the City of Fort Lauderdale is immune from state-law claims for negligent training due to sovereign immunity and that negligent supervision claims require the employee's actions to be outside the scope of employment, which was not the case here.
• René Ynclan Ynclan v. Dep't OF the AIR Force
  943 F.2d 1388· 5th Cir.· 1991-09-23 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the thirty-day period for filing a Title VII suit against a government employer is subject to equitable tolling, and a clerical delay in filing due to pending motions should not prejudice the plaintiff.
• United States for the Kalispel Indian Tribe & Individual Allottees v. Pend Oreille Pub. Util. Dist. NO. 1
  926 F.2d 1502· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court properly excluded annual spring floods when determining the ordinary high water line and that the Tribe's aboriginal title was extinguished by compensation. However, the court reversed the denial of the Tribe's motion to amend its complaint
• Christopher C. DAY, Ph.D. v. Morgenthau
  909 F.2d 75· 2d Cir.· 1990-08-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were time-barred because they were filed one day after the three-year statute of limitations expired, applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a) and New York General Construction Law § 20.
• Edwards v. Occidental Chem. Corp.
  892 F.2d 1442· 9th Cir.· 1990-01-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an amended complaint naming the correct defendant relates back to the original filing date if the defendant received notice and knew or should have known of the mistake, and that a district court's finding of pretext in an employer's stated reasons for a promo
• Ferris v. Santa Clara Cnty.
  891 F.2d 715· 9th Cir.· 1989-12-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the California statutes proscribing certain sexual activities with minors are constitutional and that the district court did not err in striking the appellant's second amended complaint.
• Interroyal Corp. v. Sponseller
  889 F.2d 108· 6th Cir.· 1989-11-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment without providing notice of the required specificity for opposing evidence and in denying leave to amend the complaint without sufficient justification.
• Jaser v. NEW York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Ass'n & Adriano Fernandes
  815 F.2d 240· 2d Cir.· 1987-03-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying leave to amend the complaint to drop nondiverse parties, as those parties were not indispensable. However, the dismissal for lack of diversity was proper.
• Sweetheart Plastics, Inc. v. Detroit Forming, Inc.
  743 F.2d 1039· 4th Cir.· 1984-09-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion to amend the complaint and erred in its jury instructions regarding acquiescence and abandonment.
• Konigsberg v. Shute
  435 F.2d 551· 3d Cir.· 1970-12-22 ·cited 8×
  A defendant waives the right to assert lack of personal jurisdiction or insufficiency of process if the defense is not raised by motion or in the initial responsive pleading or an amendment made as a matter of course.
• In re Perspectron, Inc. v. Aero-Dyne Corp. OF Ill.
  422 F.2d 576· 7th Cir.· 1970-02-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court correctly determined it lacked summary jurisdiction because Aero-Dyne and the United States advanced real and substantial claims to the property, which required adjudication in a plenary proceeding.
• Rowe v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  421 F.2d 937· 4th Cir.· 1970-01-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion to file an amended and supplemental complaint alleging an assignment of the insured's claim against the insurer for bad faith refusal to settle.
• John M. Peters Constr. Co. v. Marmar Corp.
  329 F.2d 421· 6th Cir.· 1964-03-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to cure defective allegations of jurisdiction.
• Scarfone v. Denby
  156 So. 2d 694· Fla. 2d DCA· 1963-09-25 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed a foreclosure decree against defendants who failed to answer an amended complaint, holding that under Florida Rule 1.15(a), an answer to an original complaint does not automatically stand over as an answer to an amended complaint requiring a new response.
• Cummings v. Greif Bros. Cooperage Co.
  202 F.2d 824· 8th Cir.· 1953-03-26 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge believes the judgment of dismissal should be affirmed because the statute of limitations had run and the plaintiff's wife was a necessary party who was not joined.
• Paper Container MFG. Co. v. Dixie Cup Co.
  170 F.2d 333· 3d Cir.· 1948-08-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Paper Container, despite assigning its patent application to RFC as security, retained sufficient interest to be considered an 'applicant' under R.S. § 4915 and thus a real party in interest entitled to bring suit.
• McDOWALL v. Orr Felt & Blanket Co.
  146 F.2d 136· 6th Cir.· 1944-11-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the appellant leave to file an amended complaint, as amendments should be freely allowed when justice requires.
• Edwards v. Niles Sales & Serv., Inc.
  439 F. Supp. 2d 1202· S.D. Fla.· 2006-06-27 ·cited 7×
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to grant summary judgment for the defendants, denying the plaintiff's request to amend his complaint.
• Allapattah Servs., Inc. v. Exxon Corp.
  61 F. Supp. 2d 1326· S.D. Fla.· 1999-07-20 ·cited 7×
  The court held that plaintiffs are not entitled to assert a claim for punitive damages because their allegations constitute a breach of contract, not an independent tort, and the request to amend the complaint was untimely and would cause undue prejudice.
• Leaf v. Supreme Court OF the State OF Wis.
  979 F.2d 589· 7th Cir.· 1992-11-12 ·cited 7×
  The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district courts from reviewing claims that are inextricably intertwined with state court judgments, but it does not bar claims brought by individuals who were not parties to the state proceedings.
• In re Emil Stavriotis and Judith Stavriotis
  977 F.2d 1202· 7th Cir.· 1992-10-23 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the bankruptcy judge abused his discretion by denying the government leave to amend its claim.
• Bundy v. Rudd
  581 F.2d 1126· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-02 ·cited 7×
  Federal courts should abstain from interfering with pending state criminal proceedings, and a party seeking pro hac vice admission must demonstrate a protected property or liberty interest, which was not shown here.
• Yule v. Ocean Reef Community Associaton
  2020 WL 3051505· S.D. Fla.· 2020-09-01 ·cited 6×
  The court denied plaintiff's motion for partial reconsideration and for leave to amend her complaint.
• Burger King Corp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc.
  161 F. Supp. 2d 1331· S.D. Fla.· 2001-08-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that defendants sufficiently stated a claim for tortious interference with contractual relations, but lacked standing to sue under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
• Anda v. Ralston Purina
  959 F.2d 1149· 1st Cir.· 1992-03-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that plaintiffs could not recover damages for relocation expenses they did not incur, and their tort claim was time-barred because the letters sent did not constitute a precise and specific extrajudicial claim to toll the statute of limitations.
• Perkins v. Silverstein
  939 F.2d 463· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the plaintiffs' claims because the complaint, even as amended, failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and the denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion.
• Charpentier v. Godsil
  937 F.2d 859· 3d Cir.· 1991-06-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Dr. Lewis was immune under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act for injuries resulting from his failure to prescribe further treatment for Charpentier's mental illness, as the Act grants immunity for 'failing to prescribe' and the proviso regarding negligence in pre
• Nat'l Bank OF Wash. v. Pearson
  863 F.2d 322· 4th Cir.· 1988-12-14 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed summary judgment for the bank on the guaranty liability, reversed denial of judgment n.o.v. on punitive damages, and affirmed denial of leave to amend the answer.
• Barrows v. Forest Labs., Inc.
  742 F.2d 54· 2d Cir.· 1984-08-06 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint, as the proposed claims were speculative, sought a windfall, and would unduly prejudice the defendants.
• Lathrop Douglass v. First Nat'l Realty Corp.
  437 F.2d 666· D.C. Cir.· 1970-11-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court properly granted summary judgment for the architect because the appellant's arguments raised legal construction issues, not genuine disputes of material fact, and the construction cost was correctly computed based on the owner's authorized esti
• Engbrock v. Fed. Ins. Co.
  370 F.2d 784· 5th Cir.· 1967-01-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying evidence of excessive payments without a fraud or bad faith pleading, and that the jury demand was untimely.
• United States v. Feinberg
  372 F.2d 352· 3d Cir.· 1965-09-17 ·cited 6×
  A compromise agreement with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, including a waiver of the statute of limitations, is effective even if entered into after the limitations period has expired.
• Clardy v. Duke Univ.
  299 F.2d 368· 4th Cir.· 1962-02-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the statute of limitations began to run at the time of the alleged injury, not upon discovery of the injury.
• McNAUGHTON v. The NEW York Cent. R.R. Co.
  220 F.2d 835· 7th Cir.· 1955-03-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's own negligence proximately contributed to his injuries, barring recovery.
• Heay v. Phillips
  201 F.2d 220· 9th Cir.· 1952-12-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing a second amended complaint to include a negligence claim and in denying requests for a continuance.
• Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Farmers Bank of Clay
  178 F.2d 570· 6th Cir.· 1949-12-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the amended complaint sufficiently alleged an actual controversy, and the district court erred in dismissing the declaratory judgment action based on untimeliness of amendments and lack of controversy.
• Teel v. United Techs. Pratt & Whitney
  953 F. Supp. 1534· S.D. Fla.· 1997-02-17 ·cited 5×
  Florida Statute § 768.72, which requires a reasonable evidentiary basis before punitive damages can be pleaded, is substantive law and must be applied in federal court to state law claims to prevent forum shopping and inequitable administration of the law.
• Joyner v. Monier Roof Tile, Inc.
  784 F. Supp. 872· S.D. Fla.· 1992-02-04 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 should be applied retroactively to allow amendment of the complaint, as it provides remedial rather than substantive changes and does not result in manifest injustice.
• Pawtuxet Cove Marina, Inc. v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.
  807 F.2d 1089· 1st Cir.· 1986-12-18 ·cited 5×
  A citizen suit under the Clean Water Act may proceed if the plaintiff fairly alleges a continuing likelihood that the defendant will violate the Act if not enjoined, even if the specific violation has ceased.