-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-04-23
The court held that a plaintiff's motion to amend a complaint to add a non-diverse defendant after removal will be denied if the amendment's primary purpose is to destroy diversity jurisdiction and the plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim against the proposed defendant.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-04-15
Victims of an aviation-related Ponzi scheme sued Bank of America, alleging the bank issued misleading reference letters about the fraudster's company and substantially assisted the fraud by maintaining the fraudulent account, but the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend t
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-03-04
The court held that the second amended complaint failed to state a claim against any defendant and the third amended complaint was improperly filed, but granted leave to file a fourth amended complaint.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-02-09
The court held that a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) was inappropriate because the prior order granting leave to amend was not a final order. The court also noted that the timeliness challenge could be raised in a motion to dismiss.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-02-02
The court held that the plaintiff's motion to vacate prior orders or amend his complaint was denied because he failed to establish excusable neglect or newly discovered evidence, and any amendment would be futile due to undue delay and repeated pleading deficiencies.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-11-17
The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were moot because the filing periods for H-1B visas had passed and the court could not grant meaningful relief. The court also found that the USCIS's rejection of petitions complied with regulations and that the Adjudicator's Field Manua
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-11-08
The court denied the motion for reconsideration, finding it raised duplicative arguments and lacked merit, and granted the opposing party's request for attorney's fees against the movant's counsel.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-09-26
Shareholders Williams and Arona sued 3rd Home Limited and its founder Wade Shealy seeking to wind up the corporation, recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty, and obtain appointment of a receiver. The court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding that the shareholde
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-09-19
The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion, vacating its prior order and allowing the plaintiff to amend his complaint regarding Count 2, while affirming that claims against certain defendants were barred by immunity.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-09-18
The court held that an amended complaint, liberally construed as a request for post-judgment relief, could state a claim for denial of access to courts.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-06-27
The court granted the plaintiff's request to file a second amended complaint, deeming it the operative pleading.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-12-16
The court held that the claim against Officer Rodriguez may proceed, but all other claims against the remaining defendants are dismissed with prejudice, with leave to amend for excessive force claims against unidentified officers.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-10-25
The court held that most claims are barred by the economic loss doctrine, but claims for damage to 'other property' caused by TritoCryl may proceed. Leave to amend was denied.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-08-23
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to vacate the default and judgment, and denied the motion for leave to amend the complaint.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-07-04
The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff adequately stated claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, and that the defendant had not waived personal jurisdiction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-05-25
In this First Amendment retaliation and false arrest case, the district court denied the defendant officer's motion to dismiss claims arising from plaintiff's arrest at a 2020 Miami protest after he criticized police while filming and speaking through a megaphone. The court held
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-03-29
The court affirmed in part and adopted the magistrate judge's report, denying the corporate defendants' motion to dismiss but granting defendant Flores's motion to dismiss with leave to amend.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-01-03
The court held that while most of the plaintiff's claims were properly dismissed, she should be granted leave to amend her complaint to attempt to state a plausible claim, except for claims dismissed with prejudice.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-12-08
The court held that reconsideration of its prior dismissal order was not warranted, and denied the plaintiffs' request for leave to file an amended complaint.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-10-06
The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and dismissed the case with prejudice.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-09-28
The court denied the defendant's motion for leave to file a third-party complaint and amended answer because the motion was filed late, would cause undue delay and prejudice, and would require significant modifications to the existing case schedule.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-09-24
The court held that the plaintiff demonstrated good cause to reopen the amendment period and satisfied the standard for leave to amend the pleadings, allowing the addition of a new defendant.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-09-20
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, clarification, and leave to amend, finding no basis for reconsideration, that the clarification request was moot, and that the plaintiff failed to show good cause for an untimely amendment.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-09-13
The court held that the complaint was a shotgun pleading and dismissed it without prejudice, granting leave to amend, and denied the defendants' motions to dismiss as moot.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-09-07
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment and denied leave to amend the complaint, finding no clear error in the prior dismissal of the claims.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-08-21
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under RICO because he did not adequately plead predicate acts of racketeering activity or a pattern of such activity.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-08-20
The court held that while the relators could dismiss Count I, they must file an amended complaint to do so, and the United States' consent resolved the statutory inquiry regarding dismissal.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-07-14
Plaintiff Yolaisy Perez sought to amend her complaint in a fatal police shooting case by adding eight new defendants and three new causes of action more than eight months after the amendment deadline had passed and after fifty-five depositions had been taken. The court denied the
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-02-19
The court denied defendants' motion for leave to amend affirmative defenses because they failed to establish good cause for amending after the scheduling order deadline and did not demonstrate diligence.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-01-25
The court held that the plaintiff's amendment to add a non-diverse defendant was proper, destroying diversity jurisdiction and requiring remand.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-12-07
The court granted the motion to dismiss claims against KAR and ADESA for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed Counts I-VI for improper joinder and as compulsory counterclaims.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-02-11
The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish good cause for leave to amend their complaint after the deadline, and thus their motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of their RICO claim was denied.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-02-10
The district court properly granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. The plaintiff's objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation were untimely and failed to raise new arguments. The court found that the j
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-01-30
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under the NDAA and that her amended complaints were improperly filed, warranting dismissal.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-11-26
The court held that a non-diverse defendant added after removal will not be joined if the primary purpose is to defeat federal jurisdiction and the plaintiffs were dilatory.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-10-04
The court held that the defendant failed to show good cause to amend the scheduling order to file a third-party complaint.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-09-16
The court held that a private citizen lacks standing to bring criminal charges, and thus, the amended complaint alleging violations of criminal statutes must be dismissed.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-09-05
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause for seeking to amend their complaint after the deadline, and that allowing the amendment would cause undue prejudice to the defendant.
-
849 F. Supp. 2d 1190·
S.D. Fla.·
2013-12-30
The court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the city's zoning ordinance definition of 'adult entertainment establishment' because it failed to demonstrate an actual or imminent injury, redressability, or traceability. Consequently, the court declined supplement
-
840 F. Supp. 2d 873·
M.D. Fla.·
2013-11-05
The court held that the insurance policy did not cover attorney's fees incurred by the insured as a result of lawsuits the insured initiated, as the policy was designed to cover claims made *against* the insured, not claims initiated *by* the insured.
-
248 F.R.D. 319·
M.D. Fla.·
2013-02-04
The court held that the plaintiff's counsel failed to demonstrate excusable neglect for the late filing of a motion to substitute a party after the plaintiff's death, and thus the action was properly dismissed.
-
1992 WL 114785·
S.D. Fla.·
2012-11-30
-
Del. Ch.·
2010-06-28
The Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that the Amended Stipulation effectively tolled the statute of limitations for the plaintiff's claims. The Court held that the trustee's failure to support the proposed settlement did not constitute a breach of the stipu
-
1997 WL 336566·
S.D. Fla.·
2007-08-10
The court denied the defendants' motion to amend their pleadings because they failed to demonstrate good cause for the untimely filing after the scheduling order deadline had passed.
-
200 F.R.D. 572·
N.D. Fla.·
2006-04-14
-
958 F. Supp. 612·
S.D. Fla.·
1997-03-13
The court held that a genuine dispute of material fact exists regarding whether the employer had reasonable suspicion to request a polygraph examination, and thus denied summary judgment for the employer. The court also denied the employee's cross-motion for summary judgment on v
-
969 F.2d 1424·
2d Cir.·
1992-07-21
The court held that plaintiff adequately proved product nexus and that the jury's apportionment of liability was supported by the evidence, affirming the district court's judgment.
-
952 F.2d 841·
5th Cir.·
1992-01-15
The court is rehearing the case en banc to reconsider the prior panel decision.
-
118 F.R.D. 597·
S.D. Fla.·
1991-08-08
The court granted class certification, finding that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) were met, despite arguments regarding individual reliance and the class period.
-
898 F.2d 418·
4th Cir.·
1990-03-12
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend the answer to assert a fraud counterclaim without providing a reason.