-
773 F. Supp. 2d 1367·
S.D. Fla.·
2011-03-23
·cited 20×
The court granted the motion to dismiss, dismissing most claims with prejudice and others without prejudice, allowing amendment for some claims.
-
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.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-08-24
·cited 14×
The court held that defenses which merely point out defects in the plaintiff's prima facie case should be treated as denials rather than stricken as affirmative defenses. The court also held that underdeveloped arguments in a motion to strike are waived.
-
2016 WL 7325590·
M.D. Fla.·
2025-08-12
·cited 3×
The court held that a motion to strike affirmative defenses should be denied if the defenses provide fair notice and can be clarified through discovery, even if not pleaded with extreme particularity.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2026-02-10
The court held that a pro se litigant cannot represent others, and the second amended complaint was dismissed as a shotgun pleading, but the plaintiff was granted leave to amend.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2026-01-16
The court held that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead participation in a sex trafficking venture for the TVPRA claim and that the negligence claim was time-barred. The vicarious liability claim was allowed to proceed.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-12-11
The court granted default judgment on successor liability for mere continuation of business against Lakeland Interiors and Lakeland Aviation, and for piercing the corporate veil against Mr. Dinicolantonio, holding them jointly and severally liable for the unsatisfied judgments.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-20
The court recommended denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the complaint without prejudice with leave to amend due to insufficient financial information and the complaint being a shotgun pleading.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-07-16
The court held that while the plaintiff's claim was not barred by failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the complaint was dismissed for failing to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) due to being a shotgun pleading and improperly alleging respondeat superior.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-05-20
The Court denied Plaintiff's request for leave to amend its complaint because it was improperly raised in a response memorandum and failed to comply with procedural rules.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-04-28
The court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendant's affirmative defenses, striking some as impermissible under maritime law and treating others as mere denials.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-03-17
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint, which contained vague and conclusory allegations without factual support, failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-09-20
A pro se prisoner's complaint must contain plausible factual allegations that state a claim for relief, and vague assertions or labels are insufficient. Entities like Sheriff's Offices are not suable under Florida law.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-08-29
The court held that claims related to the Duquesne Drive home are time-barred, but claims related to the Cal Cove home are not time-barred due to the reversal of conviction. The malicious prosecution claim fails for lack of legal process.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-08-27
The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint failed to state claims for Title VII retaliation, ADEA discrimination, and ADA retaliation due to pleading deficiencies, but granted leave to amend.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-03-12
The court denied motions to transfer the case and granted motions to dismiss state law claims for defamation, negligent supervision, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-03-07
The court held that affirmative defenses should not be stricken as they provide fair notice and are not facially insufficient as a matter of law.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-03-07
The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for default judgment because it failed to identify the elements of their claims or provide legal analysis supporting their entitlement to judgment.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-01-22
The court held that affirmative defenses need only provide fair notice and are not subject to the heightened pleading standards of Twombly and Iqbal. Certain defenses were struck or treated as denials, while others were allowed to proceed.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-01-16
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing disability and retaliation claims with leave to amend due to vagueness and mixing of claims, and denying the FCRA exhaustion claim due to a conflict in Florida appellate courts.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-12-01
The court held that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his excessive force claim and also failed to respond to the defendant's motion to dismiss.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-05-31
The court held that the removal was timely and the store manager was fraudulently joined, thus denying the motion to remand.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-02-27
The court held that the plaintiff's allegations did not plausibly state a claim under the TVPRA because they lacked specific facts demonstrating the defendant's knowledge or participation in the sex trafficking venture.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-12-06
The Court held that the Plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient to state a claim for municipal liability under Section 1983, and that they had standing for injunctive and declaratory relief.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-03-24
The court held that the plaintiff's claims were legally insufficient and factually baseless, warranting dismissal.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-03-08
The court held that the credit reports were not inaccurate or misleading when viewed in their entirety, and therefore the defendants did not violate the FCRA.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-10-28
The court denied defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint, finding it sufficiently pleaded patent infringement, but denied plaintiff's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-10-25
BluestarExpo, Inc. sought to recover $300,000 in payments and $35 million in lost profits from defendants who allegedly provided a fraudulent comfort letter certifying that a company had $250 million available to facilitate a glove purchase transaction that ultimately failed. The
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-06-08
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, finding the Fourth Amendment claim against the officer could proceed, but the Fourteenth Amendment claim, Monell claims against the City, and state law assault/false imprisonment claims were dismissed.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-05-19
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint sufficiently alleged notice of the dangerous condition and that the open and obvious nature of the condition requires a factual inquiry, thus denying the motion to dismiss.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-02-25
The court held that allegations of interference with existing customers refilling prescriptions sufficiently stated a claim for tortious interference with a business relationship, but allegations concerning new prescriptions were too speculative.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-12-29
The court held that the plaintiffs adequately stated claims for tortious interference and civil conspiracy, and that it possessed specific personal jurisdiction over the defendants.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-12-15
The court held that individual defendants are not liable under Title VII and that the plaintiff's complaint was a shotgun pleading that failed to comply with federal rules, requiring dismissal without prejudice to allow amendment.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-11-04
The court held that affirmative defenses must provide fair notice of the defense and the grounds upon which it rests, and are not subject to the heightened pleading standard of Twombly/Iqbal. Certain defenses were stricken as legally insufficient or irrelevant.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-04-28
The court held that the breach of contract claim (Count I) was sufficiently pleaded, but the bad faith claim (Count II) was premature and its request for punitive damages was insufficiently pleaded.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-04-21
The court denied Plaintiff's motion to strike eleven affirmative defenses, treating some as specific denials and finding others provided sufficient notice.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-04-08
The court held that affirmative defenses are subject to the heightened pleading standard of Twombly and Iqbal, and granted the motion to strike because the defendant's affirmative defenses were vague, conclusory, and lacked factual support.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-04-08
The court held that affirmative defenses are not subject to the heightened pleading standard of Twombly and will only be stricken if insufficient as a matter of law.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-04-07
The court held that the debt validation notice language, including both the creditor and debt collector as parties who may assume the debt's validity, does not mislead the least sophisticated consumer under the FDCPA.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-03-25
The court held that the amended complaint failed to state sufficient factual allegations for FLSA claims and that state law claims would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction after federal claims were dismissed.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-03-03
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment and failed to properly exhaust administrative remedies.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-01-09
The court held that certain claims premised on alleged warranty representations not found in the written warranty are dismissed, and the request for revocation of acceptance is dismissed due to lack of privity under Florida law.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-11-25
The court held that affirmative defenses are subject to the heightened pleading standard established in Twombly and Iqbal, and granted the motion to strike because many of the defendant's defenses were vague, conclusory, and failed to allege sufficient facts.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-10-30
The court held that the defendant's counterclaims were not barred by the release agreement due to undeveloped facts regarding its voluntariness, and that dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies was denied as the record was insufficient to determine timeliness or
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-10-25
The court held that affirmative defenses must comply with the heightened pleading standard established in Twombly and Iqbal, requiring factual support beyond mere conclusory allegations.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-10-03
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, ordering the plaintiff to file an amended complaint due to vagueness and lack of clearly stated claims.
-
18 La. 1·
S.D. Fla.·
2018-04-26
The court held that all claims against the defendants were subject to dismissal, either due to the statute of limitations, judicial immunity, or the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and that amendment would be futile.
-
1990 WL 191932·
S.D. Fla.·
2013-04-09
The court held that service of process was insufficient, rendering the default judgment void, and that the complaint failed to properly plead actual malice.