Case law

Wall, Sr. v. Davis

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 12, 2022

Although the series- qualifier canon certainly has limits, see Facebook v. Duguid, 141 S. … Generally, “[t]he plaintiffs choice of forum should not be disturbed unless it is clearly outweighed by other considerations.” Robinson v.

Sherman v. Baker

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

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. … Sherman does not allege facts establishing a causal connection.

Robinson v. 3M Company

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

Elghobashi’s simulation clearly examined the distribution of squames over a significantly larger area than just the knee. … Golan is qualified as an expert to perform a differential etiology on Ms.

Dunbar v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 10, 2025

Furthermore, Plaintiff does not establish any other basis for the Court to exercise jurisdiction over this action. … Additionally, the amended complaint must clearly state the basis for the Court to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.

Irby v. The Medical Staff at Columbia Correction Institution

District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 14, 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.

Schrank v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 1, 2020

“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.

Gill v. Inch

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 9, 2023

immunity; (C) Gill has failed to establish a due process violation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; (D) part of Gill’s claim is barred by the statute of limitations; (E) Gill has failed to establish supervisory … He also asserts he has established a due process violation and Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for their unconstitutional conduct. Id. at 4-10.

Allen v. First UNUM Life Insurance Company

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 17, 2022

There is no evidence Salary Allotment Agreement is binding on Prospect Hill, and the evidence clearly establishes that Prospect Hill was not billed for or remit premiums on Dr. … Prospect Hill clearly intended to provide a benefits plan.

Hardin v. Oakley Transport Inc.

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 28, 2025

Thus, a jury must decide whether Plaintiff was a “qualified individual” and therefore has establishes a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA. … c) The ADEA Defendants argue Plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination because the record establishes Plaintiff was not qualified

Jones v. Armor Healthcare

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 25, 2024

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.” 1 Jones requests

Holston v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 16, 2020

First, habeas relief may not be granted unless the state court’s adjudication of the merits was “contrary to” or “involved an unreasonable application of” clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Cullen v … He further argues the disciplinary hearing team misapplied the law of self-defense and should have found him immune from suit under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law.

Fernandez v. Trees, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 27, 2020

evidence is clearly inadmissible for any purpose.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). … For the harassment at Trees to qualify as severe and pervasive, allegations of harassment must have occurred during his tenure at Trees.

Borders v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 22, 2020

To be considered adequate, a rule must be firmly established and regularly followed. See Lee v. … Kemna, 534 U.S. 362, 376 (2002) (“[V]iolation of ‘firmly established and regularly followed’ state rules . . . will be adequate to foreclose review of a federal claim.”).

Baldwin

District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 16, 2025

A decision is contrary to clearly established federal law if the state court either: (1) applied a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth by Supreme Court case law; or (2) reached a different result from the … A decision involves an unreasonable application of clearly established law if the state court correctly identifies the governing legal principle, but applies it to the facts of the petitioner’s case in an objectively

Bates v. Robinson

District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 22, 2025

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), bars Bates’s claim; (2) Bates failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; (3) the Corrections Defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity; (4) … A grievance can be returned without action if it: is untimely; “addresses more than one issue or complaint”; is “so broad, general or vague in nature that it cannot be clearly investigated, evaluated, and responded to

Armstrong v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 16, 2025

A decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme Court] on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently … Clearly established federal law refers to the holding of an opinion by the United States Supreme Court at the time of the relevant state-court decision.

Hall v. Target Corporation

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

A court should admit expert testimony if the proponent of that testimony establishes the following: (1) the expert is qualified to testify competently regarding the matters he intends to address; (2) the … As an initial matter, Janson is clearly qualified to testify on matters of safety in a commercial setting.

Smorto v. 3DI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

393 F. Supp. 2d 1304 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 23, 2005

The Plan is a qualified employees’ welfare plan under the Internal Revenue Code, and an employee pension plan under ERISA. B. … Each denial, particularly the Final Denial, was clearly based on the ever-accumulating medical file and on particular medical opinions synthesizing the information contained therein.

Scafidi v. B. Braun Medical, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 17, 2024

She also believed that she had “natural immunity” because she had COVID in August 2021. (Id. at 43:4-9). … Lucky cannot, as a matter of law, establish either of her retaliation claims.”).

Robinson v. West Florida-PPH, LLC

District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 23, 2024

Plaintiff does not clearly identify any statutorily protected activity under Title VII in which she engaged. … This is clearly insufficient to establish an ADA retaliation claim. See id. at *5 (disclosure of positive COVID-19 test to employer does not implicate protected activity under the ADA).