Case law

Ray v. State of Florida

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 2, 2024

A claim is frivolous as a matter of law where, among other things, the defendants are immune from suit or the claim seeks to enforce a right that clearly does not exist. Id. at 327. … Additionally, where a plaintiff seeks to impose liability on one who is not an active participant in the alleged constitutional deprivation, that plaintiff must allege and establish

Bone v. Village Club, Inc.

223 F. Supp. 3d 1203 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 12, 2016

With respect to the second element, whether Capezza suffered an “adverse action,” the relevant question is whether Brookhaven’s or Rubert’s conduct qualifies as coercion, intimidation, threats, or interference. … Capezza maintains that she is entitled to summary judgment on the claim against Rubert because his statement “clearly intended to intimidate Plaintiffs.” Doc. 68 at 28.

Peek v. Dixon

District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 2, 2023

the Court to dismiss this case at any time if the Court determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) dismissals should only be ordered when the legal theories are “indisputably meritless,” id. at 327, or when the claims rely on factual allegations which are “clearly baseless.” Denton v.

Armando Cruz-Hernandez v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 26, 2026

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.” … Cruz-Hernandez fails to cite any clearly established federal law that the state court either ruled contrary to or unreasonably applied 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

Hodges v. Buzzeo

193 F. Supp. 2d 1279 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 14, 2002

According to the obligations imposed under the SPA, the answer is clearly no. … Franklin Town Corp., 34 Pa.D. & C.3d 495, 505-506 (1984) (stating rule where shareholder alleges and establishes an injury, personal to himself and apart from injury to corporation, he may bring a direct suit).

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Boeing Company

357 F. Supp. 2d 1350 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 16, 2005

Under the standard now adopted, Lockheed Martin’s claims of legitimate enterprises clearly fail. … Since Hartley, the trend has clearly been in favor of permitting associations-in-fact to include corporations. United States v.

Slayton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 27, 2021

Slayton’s complaint is rambling in nature and does not clearly identify how each defendant is responsible for violating his federal rights. … To establish a due process violation, Slayton must show that the Defendants “acted with deliberate indifference. . . .

Brown v. Mcleod

District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 5, 2023

To establish a § 1983 claim, the plaintiff must show that the conduct complained of (1) was committed by a “state actor” and (2) “deprived the complainant of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the … Because Plaintiff has not previously amended his Complaint, he will be given the opportunity to file an amended complaint that complies with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and clearly sets forth

Williams v. Secretary Department of Corrections (Duval County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 25, 2023

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.

Pauly v. Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 12, 2023

Thus, according to Hartford, he qualifies as a consulting expert because his “inspection was conducted in anticipation of litigation.” (Doc. 31 at 5.) … Makkaoui argues that “[t]here are clearly less burdensome means of obtaining the information requested.” (Doc. 32 at 5.) Not so.

Clements v. Secretary, Department of Corrections LEE

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 3, 2025

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy that should not be granted unless the movant clearly establishes all four prerequisites. See McDonald's Corp. v. … In Cadet, the Court held that “attorney negligence, even gross or egregious negligence, does not by itself qualify as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ for purposes of equitable

Antwaun V. Lee v. Delta Dorm Officers, Florida Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 8, 2026

To establish an Eighth Amendment violation, a prisoner must satisfy both an objective and subjective inquiry regarding a prison official’s conduct. Swain v. … Also, Lee does not clearly assert that the skin problems he developed were caused by a lack of hygiene. See Complaint at 5–6.

Crume v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

417 F. Supp. 2d 1258 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 14, 2006

There is no clearly defined evidence of manic or hypomanic symptoms. … There was no clearly defined evidence of manic or hypomanic symptoms.

Natarajan v. Paul Revere Life Insurance

720 F. Supp. 2d 1321 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 18, 2010

Defendants counter, arguing that summary judgment is proper because: 1) Plaintiff has not established the requisite mens rea to support the RICO counts; 2) Plaintiff has failed to establish a pattern of racketeering; 3) Plaintiff … Defendants next contend that the Plaintiff has failed to establish a pattern of racketeering activity.

Thomas v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Duval County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 21, 2023

In applying such deference, this Court finds the state court’s adjudication of the claim was not contrary to clearly established federal law, did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established … Upon this record, this Court finds that the state court’s adjudication of this claim was not contrary to clearly established federal law, did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established federal

Rohttis v. Lee County School District

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 22, 2022

Both FMLA interference and retaliation claims require the employee to establish that she qualified for leave. Hurley, 746 F.3d at 1166-67. … "To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that at the time of the adverse employment action, she (1) had a disability, (2) was a qualified

Fouts v. Avelo Airlines, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 24, 2025

To establish a prima facie case under the ADA, Plaintiff must show that “(1) she is disabled, (2) she was a ‘qualified individual’ when she was terminated, and (3) she was discriminated against on account of her disability … That she was initially qualified for the job does not establish that she remained qualified at the time of her termination.

Homes by Deramo, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co.

661 F. Supp. 2d 1281 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 14, 2009

Specifically, Mid-Continent contends that the damage to the Home does not qualify as “Property Damage” under the Policy. … Aetna Cas., 675 So.2d 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996): The rule is well established that where the complaint alleges facts that clearly do not fall within the policy liability coverage provisions and the insurer nevertheless assumes

Bey v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 5, 2019

“The EAJA ... establishes a two-step analysis for determining the appropriate hourly rate to be applied in calculating attorney’s fees under the Act.” Meyer v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 1029, 1033 (11th Cir. 1992). … To do otherwise amounts to awarding interest for which the United States has not waived sovereign immunity. Id.; see also United States v.

Diebel v. S.B. Trucking Co.

262 F. Supp. 2d 1319 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 9, 2003

This Court reaches this conclusion despite the Defendants’ assertion that Hi Performance is immune from liability pursuant to Fla. … Hence, the time for amending the removal petition has clearly expired. 53 .