Rule 15(a)

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

• In re Pegasus Wireless Corp. Sec. Litig.
  657 F. Supp. 2d 1320· S.D. Fla.· 2009-09-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to plead with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that defendant Peraticos acted with scienter, and thus granted his motion to dismiss.
• Espat v. Espat
  56 F. Supp. 2d 1377· M.D. Fla.· 1999-07-19 ·cited 4×
  Nocif Espat sought declaratory relief regarding ownership of a life insurance policy on his ex-wife Kay Ellen Espat, claiming he became the owner upon their 1989 divorce, while Kay Ellen later designated Randolph Richardson as beneficiary. The court denied Federated Life Insuranc
• CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Pensacola
  936 F. Supp. 885· N.D. Fla.· 1995-10-17 ·cited 4×
  The court granted plaintiff's motion to amend its complaint to add new contract claims and defendants, finding the proposed claims were not futile. The court denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of prior dismissals.
• Block v. First Blood Assocs.
  988 F.2d 344· 2d Cir.· 1993-03-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the investors' securities fraud claims were time-barred because they accrued in October 1982, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the defendants to amend their answer to plead the statute of limitations defense.
• Caldwell v. Woodford Cnty. Chief Jailer
  968 F.2d 595· 6th Cir.· 1992-07-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the use of a stun gun and straitjacket to subdue a disruptive inmate was a good-faith effort to maintain order and did not violate the Eighth Amendment, and that the one-day delay in medical treatment did not constitute deliberate indifference.
• The United States v. Cont'l Ill. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. OF Chicago (individually & as agent for The Bank of Cal., N.A.
  889 F.2d 1248· 2d Cir.· 1989-11-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the "buyer in the ordinary course of business" defense is an affirmative defense, and that the lower courts abused their discretion by denying the appellant leave to amend its answer to assert this defense.
• Harley McLAIN v. Meier
  851 F.2d 1045· 8th Cir.· 1988-07-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while a voter has standing to challenge ballot access laws, North Dakota's laws were not unconstitutionally restrictive, but the district court erred in denying leave to amend regarding a claim about uncounted write-in votes.
• Charles T. Corwin, D.D.S. v. Marney
  843 F.2d 194· 5th Cir.· 1988-04-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that summary judgment based on constructive knowledge from public records was improper for federal securities law limitations, and that the RICO claim is subject to a four-year statute of limitations.
• Seafoam, Inc. v. Barrier Sys., Inc.
  830 F.2d 62· 5th Cir.· 1987-10-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on prescription and in dismissing the suit for lack of jurisdictional amount, reversing both decisions.
• Cornwall v. U.S. Constr. Mfg., Inc.
  800 F.2d 250· Fed. Cir.· 1986-09-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion to amend the answer to include an affirmative defense of invalidity without providing a justifying reason or considering prejudice.
• Seymour M. Chase v. Pan-Pacific Broad., Inc.
  750 F.2d 131· D.C. Cir.· 1984-12-18 ·cited 4×
  A defendant does not waive a personal jurisdiction defense by asserting it simultaneously with a counterclaim in their answer.
• Foster v. Daon Corp.
  713 F.2d 148· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motions to amend her complaint, particularly concerning the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims.
• Syble Gene Shows v. Thurl S. Harber and S. O. G.
  575 F.2d 1253· 8th Cir.· 1978-05-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying leave to amend the complaint to establish diversity jurisdiction, but correctly dismissed the Jones Act and Admiralty claims for lack of jurisdiction.
• Baker v. Chicago
  489 F.2d 953· 7th Cir.· 1973-11-30 ·cited 4×
  A release, unsupported by consideration and lacking mutual intent, does not bar a civil rights claim, especially when the employee reasonably relied on advice from a government agency.
• In re LOS Angeles Tr. Deed & Mortg. Exch. v. Phipps
  464 F.2d 1136· 9th Cir.· 1972-07-17 ·cited 4×
  The bankruptcy referee did not have summary jurisdiction over the trustees' counterclaim because it arose from transactions separate from the creditors' claims, and the creditors timely objected to jurisdiction.
• Roloff v. Arabian Am. OIL Co.
  421 F.2d 240· 2d Cir.· 1970-01-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the New York Workmen's Compensation Law was not the exclusive remedy for injuries resulting from malpractice by the employer's medical staff, even if stipulated in the employment contract.
• Farris O. Anderson v. Nat'l Producing Co.
  253 F.2d 834· 2d Cir.· 1958-04-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of a partnership between Hamid and Morton, and that the admission of certain evidence was proper or harmless error.
• Bryne v. United States
  218 F.2d 327· 1st Cir.· 1955-01-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because the maximum price for the salvaged sulphur could not be determined from the record, and the validity and application of a retroactive price order were improperly handled.
• Fuente Cigar, Ltd. v. Opus One
  985 F. Supp. 1448· M.D. Fla.· 1997-11-05 ·cited 3×
  The court granted leave for Opus One to amend its complaint to add a claim for damages and an anti-dilution claim, finding these amendments were not futile. The court also found that Fuente could amend its complaint to add a claim under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.
• Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Holbrook
  867 F.2d 1330· 11th Cir.· 1989-03-15 ·cited 3×
  The district court erred in dismissing the insurer's declaratory judgment action as premature, as a federal 'case or controversy' existed under the Declaratory Judgment Act, irrespective of Georgia's procedural law on justiciability.
• MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Best Tel. Co., Inc.
  898 F. Supp. 868· S.D. Fla.· 1994-04-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the filed tariff doctrine precludes the defendant's affirmative defenses and counterclaim, but a material issue of fact exists regarding the amount owed.
• Confederate Mem'l Ass'n, Inc. v. Hines
  995 F.2d 295· D.C. Cir.· 1993-06-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the RICO claim with prejudice but vacated the dismissal of state law claims and Rule 11 sanctions for lack of explanation.
• Romeo G. Wisdom v. Intrepid Sea-Air Space Museum
  993 F.2d 5· 2d Cir.· 1993-05-03 ·cited 2×
  The Second Circuit held that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 does not apply retroactively to cases pending at the time of its enactment.
• Medigen OF Kentucky v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n OF W. Va.
  985 F.2d 164· 4th Cir.· 1993-02-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that West Virginia's certification requirement for medical waste transporters, which restricts market entry based on existing service adequacy, unconstitutionally burdens interstate commerce under the dormant Commerce Clause. The court also affirmed the district co
• Alley v. Resolution Tr. Corp. for the Fed. Asset Disposition Ass'n
  984 F.2d 1201· D.C. Cir.· 1993-01-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preempted the former employees' state-law claims regarding benefit policies, the district court should have granted them leave to amend their complaints to assert claims under ERISA.
• Cotita v. Pharma-Plast
  974 F.2d 598· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in allowing the defendant to amend its answer to assert the plaintiff's comparative negligence, nor in refusing to allow additional evidence of the manufacturer's fault during the damages phase.
• Est. OF Kathleen Ann Johnson v. Vill. OF Libertyville
  819 F.2d 174· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the parents lacked standing to sue as special administrators because their appointment was void under Illinois law, and they failed to plead individual injuries to themselves in their own right.
• Taylor v. Beckas
  424 F.2d 905· D.C. Cir.· 1970-01-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the plaintiff to amend her complaint to reduce the ad damnum, as leave to amend should be freely given when justice requires.
• In re Sturdevant v. Maley
  415 F.2d 465· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that objections to a bankrupt's discharge are amendable and that the amended objections met the required pleading standards.
• Brown v. Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Co.
  189 F.2d 871· 2d Cir.· 1951-06-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant failed to prove its defense of good faith reliance on agency rulings under the Portal-to-Portal Act, and that the amended complaint was properly allowed.
• Kennedy v. AmGUARD Ins. Co.
  2013 WL 12092257· S.D. Fla.· 2025-01-21 ·cited 1×
  The court recommended granting the defendant's motion to amend its affirmative defenses and denying the plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint and remand the case.
• Green v. Carnival Corp.
  2023 WL 5831727· S.D. Fla.· 2024-11-05 ·cited 1×
  The court recommended granting in part and denying in part Carnival's motion to dismiss, finding the plaintiff adequately alleged constructive notice of a defective flooring hazard.
• Washington v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families
  595 F. Supp. 2d 1291· M.D. Fla.· 2009-01-27 ·cited 1×
  The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants because the alleged tortious acts and resulting injuries occurred in Ohio, not Florida, and the plaintiff's conspiracy allegations were too vague to establish jurisdiction.
• Bergquist v. Fid. Info. Servs., Inc.
  399 F. Supp. 2d 1320· M.D. Fla.· 2005-11-10 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the defendant properly asserted the computer professional exemption defense under the FLSA, and the plaintiff's employment duties and salary met the requirements for this exemption, thus entitling the defendant to summary judgment.
• Outdoor Sys., Inc. v. City OF Mesa
  997 F.2d 604· 9th Cir.· 1993-06-30 ·cited 1×
  The sign codes do not facially violate the First Amendment or state constitutional free speech guarantees, nor do they effect an impermissible taking of property. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint.
• Treister v. City of Miami
  893 F. Supp. 1057· S.D. Fla.· 1992-08-13 ·cited 1×
  The court held that most of the plaintiffs' federal constitutional claims are barred by res judicata and the full faith and credit statute due to prior state court rulings.
• Northrop Corp. v. AIL Sys., Inc.
  959 F.2d 1424· 7th Cir.· 1992-04-10 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a contract dispute between two private defense contractors over a teaming agreement does not implicate a uniquely federal interest sufficient to invoke federal common law jurisdiction.
• Costello v. Providers Fid. Life Ins. Co.
  958 F.2d 836· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-11 ·cited 1×
  The court held that summary judgment was prematurely granted before the defendant had adequate opportunity for discovery and that the defendant should be allowed to amend its pleadings to assert a compulsory counterclaim.
• O'Rear v. Am. Fam. Life Assurance Co. of Columbus, Inc.
  784 F. Supp. 1561· M.D. Fla.· 1992-02-25 ·cited 1×
  The court granted dismissal of Count II and the Plan, denied dismissal of Counts I and VI, and granted a stay pending arbitration, finding that while fraudulent concealment was sufficiently pled, misrepresentations regarding employment status were not, and that the arbitration cl
• Libby v. United States
  535 F. Supp. 667· M.D. Fla.· 1987-04-17 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the "forthwith" service requirement under the Suits in Admiralty Act is a procedural requirement superseded by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(j), and that the plaintiff's 24-day delay in service was reasonable and thus "forthwith."
• NDK Corp. v. Local 1550 of the United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union
  709 F.2d 488· 7th Cir.· 1983-06-17 ·cited 1×
  The court held that Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act does not grant federal courts jurisdiction over suits seeking to determine the validity of a collective bargaining agreement when validity is the ultimate issue.
• Cushing v. Holowaty
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2025-12-11
  The court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment claim, finding the plaintiff sought monetary damages. However, the court granted the motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment count as duplicative of the fraud claim. Th
• Vazquez v. Lee Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-09
  The court held that the amended complaint was a shotgun pleading and dismissed all claims without prejudice due to insufficient factual allegations and failure to exhaust administrative remedies for some claims.
• Burgess v. Snider
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-23
  The court held that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's excessive force claims related to the use of pepper spray and the application of handcuffs.
• Mushynkevych v. Infinity Auto Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-04-08
  The court granted Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint to add a non-diverse defendant and remanded the case to state court.
• Davis v. Pasco Cnty. State Attorney Off.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-02
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the fourth amended complaint without prejudice.
• Simpson v. Recksiedler
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-31
  The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend, allowing her to file a second amended complaint, and denied the defendant's motion to dismiss as moot.
• Boston v. Surat Invs., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-27
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and to remand the case.
• Series 15-09-321 v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-08-13
  The court recommended granting the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to insufficient pleading of a valid assignment, and granting the motion for leave to amend.
• Passage Health Int'l, LLC v. Usable Hmo, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-08-01
  The court held that leave to amend the complaint would be futile and therefore denied it, dismissing the amended complaint.