-
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
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-06-22
The court held that the plaintiff's motion to substitute the insurer as the party plaintiff was denied because it was untimely and would cause undue prejudice to the defendant, failing to meet the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 17.
-
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.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-01-11
The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion for reconsideration, finding the counterclaim was abandoned but granting leave to amend to reassert it.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-11-25
The court held that a motion in limine is not a substitute for a motion for summary judgment and that issues of damages, mitigation, and hearsay are better addressed at trial.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-11-23
The court denied the motion for leave to file a supplemental and amended pleading.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-10-29
The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion to amend its complaint, allowing the addition of certain claims but denying the joinder of a new plaintiff due to jurisdictional issues.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-06-15
The court held that leave to amend the complaint should be granted because the proposed second amended complaint cured previous deficiencies and was not futile.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-05-15
The court held that a defendant seeking to amend pleadings after a scheduling order deadline must first show good cause under Rule 16, and if shown, then demonstrate no substantial reason to deny amendment under Rule 15.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-05-14
The court denied Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend its complaint to add a party defendant because the motion was filed after the deadline and Plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause or diligence.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-02-28
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for the late filing after the scheduling order deadline had passed.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-02-24
The court held that a stay of litigation and continuance of trial deadlines were not warranted, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause or exceptional circumstances.
-
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.·
2020-02-11
The court granted the defendant's motion for leave to amend its answer and affirmative defenses, finding good cause for the untimely filing and that the proposed amendments were neither futile nor inadequately pled.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-02-07
The court granted the motion to dismiss, dismissing the case with prejudice because the amended complaint violated prior court orders, failed to cure deficiencies, and failed to state a claim as a matter of law.
-
Fla. 1st DCA·
2019-11-22
The appellate court reversed a burglary conviction because the trial court improperly admitted evidence of a "collateral crime" (a checkbook belonging to a third party found in the stolen backpack). The court found this evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial, potentially leading
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-11-04
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint to add numerous state-law claims and defendants, but granted an extension of discovery deadlines and allowed amendment to add a failure to intervene claim against two specific defendants. The request for appointment o
-
160 So. 3d 111·
Fla. 4th DCA·
2015-03-18
Testimony that a defendant was arrested in a high crime area is admissible when relevant to refuting an entrapment defense.
-
162 So. 3d 1042·
Fla. 3d DCA·
2015-03-04
Mario Taverna appeals a judgment entered in favor of Marisela Fonseca on his cross-claim for indemnity regarding a guarantee of a line of credit. The court reverses and remands for a new trial, finding that Taverna was prejudiced by unsubstantiated representations made by Fonseca
-
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.
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2012-02-01
The Industrial Accident Board's (IAB) decision denying additional compensation for cervical spine treatment was supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error. The IAB properly excluded the claimant's testimony regarding treatment from an undisclosed physician due to
-
Del. Ch.·
2011-02-11
The Court of Chancery denied the Defendants' motion for leave to file a Second Amended Answer and Counterclaims. The court found that the proposed amendments were futile and would cause undue delay and prejudice to the Plaintiff, Frank Whittington. The court reasoned that the Def
-
Del. Ch.·
2011-02-09
The Court denied Defendant's motion to reopen the record, finding the newly discovered email was not material enough to likely change the outcome and would cause prejudice. The Court also denied Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, concluding that it failed to demonstrate over
-
Del. Ch.·
2010-10-07
The Court of Chancery denied Defendants' motion to reopen a judgment based on newly discovered evidence. The court found that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the alleged newly discovered evidence (a laptop computer) could not have been discovered with reasonable diligen
-
Del. Ch.·
2010-07-26
The court denied Pope's motion to supplement the record with Benda's 2009 Form 10-K, finding that Pope could have discovered the information with reasonable diligence, the evidence was largely cumulative, Benda would be unduly prejudiced, and judicial economy favored denial. The
-
31 So. 3d 909·
Fla. 4th DCA·
2010-03-31
The court held that the admission of a photograph of a child victim's medical examination was an abuse of discretion because it was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial, and the error was not harmless.
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2010-03-05
The court granted the defendant's motion to preclude the first $15,000 of plaintiffs' damages under Delaware's no-fault law, finding that the child's injuries arose out of the use of the motor vehicle. The court also granted the defendant's motion to exclude a DVD taken years aft
-
982 So. 2d 1288·
Fla. 4th DCA·
2008-06-11
The State of Florida sought a writ of certiorari to overturn a trial court's order excluding a key state witness, former Detective Christopher Zapata, from testifying against another former detective, Lee Martin, who was charged with official misconduct and falsification of polic
-
Del. Ch.·
2008-05-21
The Court of Chancery denied Plaintiffs' motion for reargument, finding no material misapprehension of fact or law that would alter the prior decision. The court also denied Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a fifth amended complaint, concluding that the proposed amendment wou
-
550 F. Supp. 2d 1377·
S.D. Fla.·
2008-04-28
Evidence of the defendant's 2000 drug conviction is admissible to prove knowledge and intent for the charged conspiracy, but other prior drug and firearm convictions are excluded.
-
944 So. 2d 1172·
Fla. 5th DCA·
2006-12-15
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance and that the prosecutor's arguments did not constitute fundamental error.
-
200 F.R.D. 572·
N.D. Fla.·
2006-04-14
-
875 So. 2d 686·
Fla. 4th DCA·
2004-06-02
The State appeals Andrews's downward departure sentence below the mandatory minimum for aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer; Andrews cross-appeals his conviction. The court affirms the conviction but reverses the sentence, remanding for re-sentencing with the mandator
-
831 So. 2d 781·
Fla. 1st DCA·
2002-12-04
The State appeals a trial court order excluding similar fact evidence of a prior robbery to prove the defendant's identity in a charged robbery. The appellate court reverses, holding that the cumulative effect of similarities between the robberies demonstrated a sufficiently uniq
-
731 So. 2d 727·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1999-03-24
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for continuance and that the defendant had notice of the State's intent to seek a habitual sentence.
-
654 So. 2d 984·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1995-05-03
-
998 F.2d 1247·
4th Cir.·
1993-07-01
The court held that the admission of highly prejudicial evidence of child molestation, homosexuality, and abuse of women substantially outweighed its probative value and warranted vacating the convictions of Swami and Sheldon. The court also held that the evidence was insufficien
-
997 F.2d 525·
9th Cir.·
1993-06-10
The court held that admitting expert testimony regarding the defendant's firearm possession during a simple drug transaction was reversible error due to undue prejudice.
-
970 F.2d 348·
7th Cir.·
1992-08-06
The court held that the district court erred in allowing the defendant to amend its answer to assert the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies due to undue delay and prejudice, but affirmed the summary judgment on the merits because the plaintiff faile
-
971 F.2d 1189·
6th Cir.·
1992-07-27
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions of all defendants and that the trial court did not err in denying motions for severance or in its conduct during the trial.
-
961 F.2d 719·
8th Cir.·
1992-04-07
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the exclusion of recall evidence was proper under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 and that the exclusion of untimely expert testimony was within the district court's discretion.
-
939 F.2d 1275·
5th Cir.·
1991-08-30
-
582 So. 2d 170·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1991-07-17
-
575 So. 2d 322·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1991-03-06
The court held that the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury on the threshold requirements of the Florida No-Fault Law and that the defense was sufficiently pled. The court also vacated the judgment against the Bank.
-
518 So. 2d 382·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1987-12-29
The court held that the trial court properly denied the motion to add expert witnesses because it was filed after the court's deadline and would have unduly prejudiced the appellee.