Case law

Ali v. City of Clearwater

915 F. Supp. 1231 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 7, 1996

He or she is an “otherwise qualified individual” for the program; 3. … Ali clearly satisfied his summary judgment burden by advancing the affidavits of Mr. Abdur-Rahim and Mr. Hodgden. IV.

Matthews v. City of Gulfport

72 F. Supp. 2d 1328 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 19, 1999

Defendant City points out that the Supreme Court has clearly established that in order to maintain an action for hostile work environment, the alleged conduct must be extreme. … Further, Plaintiff Matthews did not qualify for the continuing violation exception. A majority of Matthews’ allegations are time-barred.

Gelles v. Skrotsky

983 F. Supp. 1398 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 17, 1997

Under Florida law, the following four elements must be established for a defendant to successfully assert the collateral estoppel defense: (1) the issue at stake must be identical to the one decided in the prior litigation … Also, since the Court in Lockheed extended its rule to also cover pension plans, both Plans in the instant case clearly qualify.

Washington v. R-B

District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 23, 2025

to § 1915(e)(2) and dismiss the complaint if the action is frivolous or malicious, the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or the complaint seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … U.S., 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998), but the Court is under no duty to rewrite the complaint to establish subject matter jurisdiction, avoid frivolousness, or state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Clumm v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 27, 2019

The phrase “clearly established Federal law,” encompasses only the holdings of the United States Supreme Court “as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.” Williams v. … court's decision rejecting his claim was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers v. Pan Am World Services, Inc.

675 F. Supp. 1319 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 21, 1987

Arbitrator Bowers, when making her award, was acting as part of a tripartite procedure established by the parties’ collective bargaining agreement in accordance with the RLA. … The award clearly reflects that the Special Adjustment Board, on which two UPGWA panelists participated, did consider the UPGWA contract. (See Award, Exhibit A to the Complaint, at 4, 5 & 7).

Head v. Bernard

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 28, 2023

immunity; and (4) the AC is a shotgun pleading. … Later in the Motion, to support their qualified immunity argument, Defendants contend the automobile exception and search incident to arrest provide justifications for the search. Id. at 17-22.

Tompkins v. United States of America

District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 19, 2022

The Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) generally exempts misrepresentation claims from its waiver of sovereign immunity. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b); 2680(h). … Despite some slight reframing in the amended complaint, Plaintiffs’ claims clearly arise out of misrepresentations or omissions they allge the VA made concerning the Bostroms’ cats.

Rhodes v. Florida Commission on Offender Review

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 21, 2020

Bowden and FCOR Defendant Bowden argues in her motion that the Court should dismiss the claims against her because Rhodes’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations, Bowden is entitled to qualified … immunity, Rhodes has failed to state a claim for relief against a grievance responder, and Rhodes is not entitled to monetary damages.

Beckwith Electric Co. v. Sebelius

960 F. Supp. 2d 1328 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 25, 2013

Second, there is an exemption for non-profit companies that qualify as “religious employers.” … The contraceptive mandate clearly places a burden on plaintiffs, but the question is whether it is a “substantial” one.

Spinelli v. Capital One Bank

265 F.R.D. 598 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 18, 2009

Scott clearly has little or no understanding of how she became a class representative or what class she seeks to represent. … Defendants submit that Plaintiffs have “failed to establish that they or their counsel are willing and able to bear this cost, and hence have not established their adequacy to provide the notice to putative class members

Pinto v. Collier County

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 7, 2020

immunity. … As such, Pinto must plead facts that demonstrate the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Hurley v. Agrico Chemical Co.

768 F. Supp. 1551 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 3, 1991

TWC properly discontinued Hurley’s LTD benefits when Hurley no longer qualified for the benefits according to the LTD plan definitions. … Plaintiffs have not established how termination of Hurley’s LTD breached a collective bargaining agreement.

Hawks

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 6, 2026

To qualify for “next friend” standing, they must “provide an adequate explanation—such as inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability—why the real party in interest cannot appear on his own … “The burden is on the ‘next friend’ to clearly establish the propriety of his status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court.” Id. at 164.

Carter v. Southwest Airlines Co. Board of Trustees

District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 14, 2020

Date of the Qualifying Event Plaintiff claims the August Notice violates 29 C.F.R. § 2590.606-4(b)(2)(ii) because it does not include the date on which the qualifying event occurred … The information Plaintiff desires is readily identifiable: the August Notice clearly relates to her termination from Southwest Airlines, and it clearly deals with COBRA coverage.

Wright v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Polk)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 18, 2024

A decision involves an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law “if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme] Court’s decisions but unreasonably applies … Accordingly, “[t]he focus . . . is on whether the state court’s application of clearly established federal law is objectively unreasonable, and . . . an unreasonable application is different from an incorrect

United States v. Barnette

902 F. Supp. 1522 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 18, 1995

Barnette’s response to interrogatories, but stated in his own deposition that he was not qualified to render an evaluation opinion. Ironically, Mr. … Even if the government had established a pri-ma facie case of contempt, the Court finds that Mr.

Leppert v. Secretary, Department of Corrections(Putnam County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 27, 2024

of clearly established federal law, and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. … of clearly established federal law, and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings.

Kierce v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Polk County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 5, 2025

[was] established.” (Id.) … For purposes of § 2254(d)(1), the phrase “clearly established Federal law” encompasses the holdings only of the United States Supreme Court “as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.” Williams v.

Blazejowski v. Maltz

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 12, 2020

The movant must clearly establish the burden of persuasion as to the four requisites. See McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998). Blazejowski has failed to carry her burden. See Roland v. … Phillips, 19 F.3d 552, 555 (11th Cir. 1994) (quotations and citations omitted) (“Judges are absolutely immune from civil liability under section 1983 for acts performed in their judicial capacity, provided such acts are