Case law

Regions Bank v. Hyman

91 F. Supp. 3d 1234 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 7, 2015

Florida law recognizes the common law immunity from suit as an exemption. In re Buonopane, 359 B.R. 346, 347 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.2007) (citing Vaughn v. Mandis, 53 So.2d 704 (Fla.1951) and Andrews v. … I clearly knew I needed an account tenants by the entirety.” (Dkt. 363, p. 54); 7. The box for “Multiple Parties Account With Right of Survivorship” is checked.

Boullosa v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 6, 2024

Good cause is established by showing that disclosure will cause “a clearly defined and serious injury.” … qualifies as proprietary information, it fails to establish good cause[.]”); cf.

Swerhun v. General Motors Corp.

141 F.R.D. 342 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 11, 1992

Patterson, 390 U.S. 102 , 88 S.Ct. 733 , 19 L.Ed.2d 936 (1968), the Supreme Court established that joinder in a diversity case must be determined according to federal law. … However, in the Plaintiff’s response to the Defendant’s motion to dismiss for fail *347 ure to join indispensable parties, Swerhun clearly states that the complaint’s counts are founded on the actions of the Defendant.

Bracken v. United States

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 2, 2020

At that time, Bazzle was a member of the United States Army Reserve, who by virtue of his service qualified for Post 9/11 GI Bill education benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 3311. See Complaint ¶¶ 7, 8. … “‘The burden for establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction rests with the party bringing the claim.’” See Williams v.

Fullard v. Robinson

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 26, 2023

and qualified immunity; and (4) Fullard is not entitled to the relief he requests. … immunity.

Partylite Gifts, Inc. v. MacMillan

895 F. Supp. 2d 1213 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 11, 2012

MacMillan qualified for the role of Unit Leader in or about July 1993. … Hart Engineering Co., 398 Mass. 476 , 498 N.E.2d 121, 122 (1986) (incorporation of subcontract into contract must be clearly stated).

Scelta v. Delicatessen Support Services, Inc.

146 F. Supp. 2d 1255 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 25, 2001

The plaintiff at trial seemed to base the existence of an anti-affair policy upon two isolated remarks by supervisory personnel. 9 This evidence was clearly insufficient, however, to establish an anti-affair policy. … Advancing beyond summary judgment does not establish that *1270 a case has merit or immunize a party from attorneys’ fees. See e.g., Nielsen v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 701, 703 (8th Cir.1996); Flowers v.

Carpenter v. Horta

District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 24, 2019

In the section entitled “Statement of Facts,” he must clearly describe how each named defendant is involved. … Mere disagreement with the mode or amount of treatment does not establish deliberate indifference. Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1507 (11th Cir. 1991).

Smith v. Butterworth

678 F. Supp. 1552 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 2, 1988

To be defective, the law must be clearly erroneous, arbitrary, and wholly unwarranted. State v. State Bd. of Education of Florida, 467 So.2d 294 (Fla.1985). … It goes without saying, of course, that we are powerless to bar state courts from responding in their own way and construing their own constitutions so as to recognize a newsman’s privilege, either qualified or absolute.

Westchester General Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Health Education & Welfare

434 F. Supp. 435 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 27, 1977

After reviewing the Magistrate’s findings, conclusions and recommendation, the Court finds them to be neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. … Accordingly, material qualifying for exemption under (b)(4) falls within the material, disclosure of which is prohibited under § 1905.

Celotex Corp. v. Hillsborough Holdings Corp. (In Re Hillsborough Holdings Corp.)

176 B.R. 223 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 13, 1994

This was not clearly erroneous. … expected asbestos claims against Celotex, 2) Celotex was required to recognize and accrue such a loss under generally accepted accounting principles, and 3) an auditor of financial statements would have been required to qualify

United States v. Lanza

341 F. Supp. 405 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 30, 1972

The Governor would not qualify since he is not named in the federal statute; nor would the Attorney General, since he is not named in the Florida statute ( Fla. … The affidavit clearly establishes probable cause to believe that the first two couples listed were then engaged in the lottery business.

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

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 3, 2023

A decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the U.S. … Clearly established federal law refers to the holding of an opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court at the time of the relevant state court decision.

Lacava v. Oleksyk

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 15, 2023

The Agreement identified Defendant as trustee, LaCava as a clearly ascertainable beneficiary, and the 529 as the property conveyed for the trust res. … Clearly the removal of the 529 funds from the tax-favored 529 structure (to buy a car) was violative of the purpose of the trust.

Lucius v. Judd

District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 28, 2019

Lucius lumps all the Defendants together and fails to clearly indicate which facts and claims are applicable to each Defendant. … Lucius must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “Amended Complaint.”

Arnold v. Heartland Dental, LLC

101 F. Supp. 3d 1220 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 30, 2015

similarly situated employees outside her protected class more favorably than she was treated; and (4) she was qualified for the job.” … See Marcelin, 2006 WL 923745 , at *9 (“Courts analyzing the issue have consistently required that an employee’s complaints must clearly put an employer on notice of a violation of the law.”

Newcome v. Hernando County Sheriff's Office

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 2, 2022

In any amended complaint, Plaintiffs should clearly articulate – in the title of each count – which plaintiff is bringing that claim against which defendant(s). … Defendants are not precluded from raising these arguments – such as qualified immunity and sovereign immunity – in a future motion to dismiss following the filing of an amended complaint.

Robinson v. West Florida-PPH, LLC

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

Plaintiff does not clearly identify any statutorily protected activity under Title VII in which she engaged. … And if she intends to assert a reasonable accommodation claim, she must clearly identify any accommodations she requested, along with the outcomes of those requests.

Jordan v. Lakeland Regional Medical Center, Inc.

153 F. Supp. 2d 1333 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 15, 2001

Whether the candidate could fly like a student pilot under the supervision of another qualified pilot is irrelevant.” The Court fails to find this analogy applicable or persuasive. (See Dkt. # 156 at n. 15). … It clearly did not. Plaintiff also alleges that LRMC prevented Plaintiff from performing all the duties of his occupation by terminating him from its medical staff.

Gonzalez-Garcia v. U.S. Attorney Gen.

317 F. Supp. 3d 1147 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 26, 2018

Thus, it is well-established that removal itself does not establish a constitutional violation. But Plaintiffs do not sweepingly make this claim. … His claim was rejected because his hardships were not "unusual when a family member is removed," and thus "clearly insufficient to satisfy the 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard.' " Id.