Supplemental Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367)

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

• Henley v. Payne
  945 F.3d 1320· 11th Cir.· 2019-12-30 ·cited 97×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that Heck v. Humphrey does not bar a § 1983 false arrest claim when the underlying criminal charge was dismissed, not invalidated, and does not share common elements with unrelated convictions. The court also found that a false imprisonment claim can lie
• PaineWebber Income Props. Three Ltd. P'ship Ex Rel. Third Income Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Corp.
  902 F. Supp. 1514· M.D. Fla.· 1995-06-23 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to meet the mandatory 90-day notice requirement under RCRA, divesting the court of subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claim, and consequently dismissed the supplemental state law claims.
• Kaplan v. Assetcare, Inc.
  88 F. Supp. 2d 1355· S.D. Fla.· 2000-03-14 ·cited 42×
  The court held that claims under the FDCPA and FCCPA could proceed, but claims under the Florida Insurance Code would be dismissed without prejudice due to lack of supplemental jurisdiction over novel state law issues.
• Holzman v. Malcolm S. Gerald & Assocs., Inc.
  920 F.3d 1264· 11th Cir.· 2019-04-05 ·cited 21×
  A debt collection letter offering to resolve a time-barred debt, without disclosing its unenforceability, can plausibly mislead a consumer and violate the FDCPA's prohibition against false, deceptive, or misleading representations, even without an explicit threat of litigation. H
• Garcia v. Santa Maria Resort, Inc.
  528 F. Supp. 2d 1283· S.D. Fla.· 2007-11-15 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims failed to meet the heightened pleading standards for securities fraud and general plausibility, and were also barred by the statute of limitations and the bespeaks caution doctrine.
• Resnick v. KrunchCash, LLC
  34 F.4th 1028· 11th Cir.· 2022-05-20 ·cited 17×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' due process claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the claim was not so insubstantial or frivolous as to strip the court of its power to adjudicate.
• Vamper v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.
  14 F. Supp. 2d 1301· S.D. Fla.· 1998-03-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations stated claims for race discrimination under Title VII and § 1981, and that it would exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims, but dismissed the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
• Rhyne v. Henderson Cnty.
  973 F.2d 386· 5th Cir.· 1992-09-14 ·cited 14×
  The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant-municipality acted with deliberate indifference towards the mental health needs of pretrial detainees, despite a detainee's suicide.
• Rubinstein v. Yoram Yehuba
  38 F.4th 982· 11th Cir.· 2022-06-29 ·cited 13×
  Arturo Rubinstein sued Yoram and Sharona Yehuda after they sold a beachfront hotel in which Rubinstein held a majority ownership stake through his company, claiming the Yehudas fraudulently convinced him to temporarily assign his interest to help refinance the property but then p
• Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Access Telecom, Inc.
  642 F. Supp. 2d 1354· S.D. Fla.· 2009-07-24 ·cited 8×
  The court denied all motions to dismiss and strike, finding that the plaintiff adequately pleaded its claims and that subject matter jurisdiction was proper.
• Sabal Constr. & Roofing, LLC v. W. World Ins. Co.
  424 F. Supp. 3d 1136· M.D. Fla.· 2022-10-21 ·cited 7×
  The court held that it would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a former law firm's charging lien dispute, as the issue involved complex state law ethical questions best resolved by a state court.
• Ferguson v. Credit Mgmt. Control, Inc.
  140 F. Supp. 2d 1293· M.D. Fla.· 2001-03-23 ·cited 7×
  The court held that sending a debt collection letter without being registered with the Florida Department of Banking did not violate the FDCPA or FCCPA because the letter contained no threats and was merely informational, and the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdicti
• Hernandez v. Two Bros. Farm, LLC
  579 F. Supp. 2d 1379· S.D. Fla.· 2008-09-29 ·cited 6×
  The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim and motion for a more definite statement, finding the complaint sufficiently clear and supplemental jurisdiction appropriate.
• Grills v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
  645 F. Supp. 2d 1107· M.D. Fla.· 2009-08-04 ·cited 5×
  The court held that while some claims might be preempted, the plaintiff's fraud and fraudulent concealment claims, based on a duty not to deceive, are not preempted by federal law and may proceed if properly pleaded. The court also found the plaintiff failed to properly allege di
• Mason v. K Mart Corp.
  1 F. Supp. 2d 1333· M.D. Fla.· 1998-01-30 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently alleged claims for Title VII sex discrimination and retaliation, and that supplemental jurisdiction over the state law battery claim was proper.
• Doe v. Faerber Ex Rel. Estate of Faerber
  446 F. Supp. 2d 1311· M.D. Fla.· 2006-08-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff sufficiently stated claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title IX against the School Board, and a negligence claim against Mrs. Faerber as a landowner, thus denying in part and granting in part various motions to dismiss.
• Denno Ex Rel. Denno v. Sch. Bd. of Volusia Cnty.
  959 F. Supp. 1481· M.D. Fla.· 1997-02-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while a heightened pleading standard does not apply to § 1983 claims against local governments, it does apply to claims against individual officials in their individual capacities, and that the plaintiff failed to allege a clearly established constitutional ri
• Promisel v. First Am. Artificial Flowers, Inc.
  943 F.2d 251· 2d Cir.· 1991-09-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised pendent jurisdiction over the state law claim and that the employer waived the claim for offsetting unemployment and social security benefits. The court also affirmed the jury's finding of pretext in the employer's stated
• McKenzie v. EAP Mgmt. Corp.
  40 F. Supp. 2d 1369· S.D. Fla.· 1999-02-04 ·cited 3×
  Summary judgment was granted for the defendants on federal claims because the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of race or disability discrimination or retaliation, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
• Howard v. Globe Life Ins.
  973 F. Supp. 1412· N.D. Fla.· 1996-12-27 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims could not be aggregated to meet the $50,000 amount in controversy requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction, and thus the cases must be remanded to state court.
• TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. SND Cellular, Inc.
  715 F. Supp. 2d 1246· S.D. Fla.· 2010-05-21 ·cited 2×
  The court found that defendants infringed TracFone's trademarks and copyrights, and breached their contract by unlocking and reselling TracFone phones, leading to a default judgment.
• Ubuy Holdings, Inc. v. Gladstone
  340 F. Supp. 2d 1343· S.D. Fla.· 2004-10-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the federal securities fraud claim was time-barred and the RICO claim failed to allege a pattern of racketeering activity, leading to dismissal of all claims.
• Forest v. Penn Treaty Am. Corp.
  270 F. Supp. 2d 1357· M.D. Fla.· 2003-06-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while 28 U.S.C. § 1367 abrogated the Zahn rule and unnamed plaintiffs' claims can be considered for diversity jurisdiction, the defendants failed to demonstrate that the unnamed plaintiff's actual claim for restitution exceeded the $75,000 amount in controvers
• Klempner v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins.
  196 F. Supp. 2d 1233· S.D. Fla.· 2001-12-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that federal diversity jurisdiction cannot be predicated on the claim of an unnamed putative class member, nor can claims be aggregated under the common right exception in this case.
• Gill v. Three Dimension Sys., Inc.
  87 F. Supp. 2d 1278· M.D. Fla.· 2000-02-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it had federal question jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, but lacked personal jurisdiction over two defendants. The court denied dismissal for most claims but dismissed the mismanagement claim.
• McMahon v. City of Edgewater
  60 F. Supp. 2d 1281· M.D. Fla.· 1999-01-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the City Manager's employment agreement, as amended, allowed termination without cause, thus precluding a procedural due process claim. The court also declined supplemental jurisdiction over state law contract claims.
• Lane v. Calhoun-Liberty Cnty. Hosp. Ass'n Inc.
  846 F. Supp. 1543· N.D. Fla.· 1994-03-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the EMTALA does not provide a private cause of action against individual physicians and that state law claims raised novel issues, leading to dismissal of those claims. The court also addressed damages and immunity under the EMTALA.
• 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.
• Munson v. Milwaukee Bd. OF Sch. Directors
  969 F.2d 266· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees to the defendants because the plaintiff's federal and state law claims were frivolous and lacked a factual basis.
• Hogan v. Consol. Rail Corp.
  961 F.2d 1021· 2d Cir.· 1992-04-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's certification of a partial final judgment under Rule 54(b) was not an abuse of discretion, and therefore the appeal was properly dismissed.
• Inetianbor v. Cashcall, Inc.
  1990 WL 16380· S.D. Fla.· 2013-02-15 ·cited 1×
  The court held that removal was proper due to federal question jurisdiction over the FCRA claim, and that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable, requiring the parties to arbitrate their dispute.
• Ahern v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins.
  664 F. Supp. 2d 1224· M.D. Fla.· 2009-10-07 ·cited 1×
  A forum selection clause requiring venue in a specific county does not preclude litigation in the federal court encompassing that county, and certain fraud and securities claims were sufficiently pled to survive a motion to dismiss.
• Flava Works, Inc. v. City of Miami
  595 F. Supp. 2d 1341· S.D. Fla.· 2009-01-27 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the City of Miami's zoning ordinance, which is designed to regulate establishments offering adult entertainment at a physical location, cannot be applied to a residence where the public offering of such entertainment occurs solely in cyberspace.
• Craig v. Park Fin. of Broward Cnty., Inc.
  390 F. Supp. 2d 1150· M.D. Fla.· 2005-04-26 ·cited 1×
  The court held that Park Finance, as a creditor collecting its own debt, is not a 'debt collector' under the FDCPA, and dismissed claims against it, while staying claims against the attorney due to bankruptcy.
• Digiro v. Pall Aeropower Corp.
  19 F. Supp. 2d 1304· M.D. Fla.· 1998-10-02 ·cited 1×
  The court held that Count II of the plaintiff's amended complaint, alleging a violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, was time-barred and dismissed it with prejudice. The court retained supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.
• Harris v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Polk Cmty. Coll.
  981 F. Supp. 1459· M.D. Fla.· 1997-11-13 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to meet the heightened pleading standard for Section 1983 claims against individual defendants and that the college is immune under the Eleventh Amendment.
• Lemay v. Budget Rent a Car Sys., Inc.
  993 F. Supp. 1448· M.D. Fla.· 1997-07-09 ·cited 1×
  The court held that claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) are not removable to federal court and must be remanded to state court.
• Diversified Servs., Inc. v. Simkins Indus., Inc.
  974 F. Supp. 1448· S.D. Fla.· 1997-03-26 ·cited 1×
  The court affirmed the magistrate judge's recommendation, granting summary judgment for the plaintiff on Count VII, denying the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, and dismissing state law claims (Counts III-VI) for lack of supplemental jurisdiction, while denying di
• Bunger v. Hartman
  851 F. Supp. 461· S.D. Fla.· 1994-03-10 ·cited 1×
  The court denied the motion to dismiss the CERCLA claims but dismissed the common law claims without prejudice, declining supplemental jurisdiction.
• O'Neal v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  841 F. Supp. 391· M.D. Fla.· 1993-12-10 ·cited 1×
  The court held that Plaintiffs were not entitled to the protections of the Automobile Dealers' Day in Court Act because they lacked a written franchise agreement with the defendants. Furthermore, any claims related to the Braun dealership were vested in the court-appointed receiv
• Int'l Eateries of Am., Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs
  838 F. Supp. 580· S.D. Fla.· 1993-10-29 ·cited 1×
  The court held that abstention under the Pullman and Burford doctrines was appropriate because the validity of the county ordinance under state law presented unsettled questions of substantial local concern that could moot federal constitutional issues.
• White v. Cnty. OF Newberry
  985 F.2d 168· 4th Cir.· 1993-02-05 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of an affirmative act by the County to support their inverse condemnation claim and failed to establish a release of hazardous substances for their CERCLA claim.
• Growth Horizons, Inc. v. Del. Cnty.
  983 F.2d 1277· 3d Cir.· 1993-01-21 ·cited 1×
  A district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the legal insufficiency of a federal claim is improper; such claims should be decided on the merits. A public agency's refusal to pay for housing, even if influenced by bias, does not violate the Fair H
• Rosencrans v. Bronz Glow Techs., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-08
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for unpaid minimum or overtime wages under the FLSA and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.
• Abler v. Atkinson
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-12-04
  The court held that venue was improper in the Southern District of Florida and transferred the case to the Middle District of Florida.
• Abler v. Atkinson
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-04
  The court held that venue was improper in the Southern District of Florida and transferred the case to the Middle District of Florida.
• Eli Lilly & Co. v. PHTB LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-03
  The court recommended granting Eli Lilly's motion for default judgment, finding that Precision infringed on its trademarks and engaged in false advertising.
• Paige Finkelstein, M.D. v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr. of Fla., Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-11-25
  The court granted defendants' motions to strike allegations and dismiss all claims, finding them untimely or procedurally barred.
• Tmct PLLC v. Wright
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-11-21
  The court recommended granting Plaintiff's motion for default final judgment, finding sufficient basis in the pleadings for fraud and awarding damages.
• Bryant v. Lagos
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-11-14
  The court held that it has jurisdiction over all counts and that any procedural defect in removal was cured, thus denying remand; it also granted motions to dismiss due to shotgun pleading.