Case law

Bradley v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pasco County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 17, 2021

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.” at 412. … Bradley qualifies as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR) under this section, which establishes enhanced sentencing for offenders who commit certain crimes within three years of their release from prison.

Veguilla

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

This screening procedure requires the court to dismiss a prisoner’s civil action before service of process if it determines may be granted, or seeks monetary damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. … Likewise, a complaint may be dismissed as frivolous when the Court discerns from its face “that the factual allegations are clearly baseless or that the legal theories are indisputably meritless.” Davis v.

Hughes

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 3, 2026

However, judicial claims outside the scope of the EEOC complaint are allowed if they “amplify, clarify, or more clearly focus” the allegations in the EEOC complaint. Gregory, 355 F.3d at 1279 (quoting Wu v. … For a plaintiff to prove the third element, he must establish “(1) the decisionmakers knew of his protected activity; and (2) the protected activity and adverse action were not wholly unrelated.” Harris v. Fla.

Bowen v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Hillsborough County)

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

In short, the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, nor did it rest on unreasonable factual determinations. … As an initial matter, no clearly established federal law required the State to allege in the information that it would be trying Bowen under a principals theory. See United States v.

United States ex rel. Stepe v. RS Compounding LLC

304 F. Supp. 3d 1216 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 10, 2018

True, the Second Amended Complaint does more clearly identify the alleged obligation: Defendants' "obligation to return ill-gotten gains to the Government after being reimbursed by Government payors for unnecessary medications … Regarding the refill allegations, it remains unclear how pre-printing a refill number on a script pad, which physicians were free to mark out, qualifies as false.

Cooper v. Jones

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 11, 2022

Finally, Defendant Hannan argues that she is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity on any official-capacity claim, to qualified immunity on any individual-capacity claim, and that Cooper has not … immunity barred Cooper’s claims.

Garcia v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 16, 2021

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.” Id. at 412. … The court ruled that even if Garcia’s counsel filed a pretrial “Stand Your Ground” motion, Garcia would not have received immunity because testimony at trial established that Garcia was the aggressor in the incident and

Family Foot and Leg Center, P.A. v. Becerra

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 4, 2025

BACKGROUND Plaintiff provides podiatric services to Medicare-qualified patients. … or investigational for establishing Medicare coverage.

Knight v. Jacksonville Sheriff Office

District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 26, 2021

against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). “A claim is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or fact.” Bilal v. … 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.

Garcia Ex Rel. Estate of Garcia v. Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc.

510 F. Supp. 2d 821 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 5, 2007

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 , 106 S.Ct. 2548 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986), the moving party bears the initial burden of establishing the nonexistence of a triable issue of fact. … Stat. § 324.021 (9)(b)(2) clearly compel the conclusion that the Plaintiffs’ claims against the Lessor Defendants are preempted.

Custom Compounding LLC d/b/a Plymouth Medical v. EmCyte Corporation

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 18, 2026

Immediate injunctive relief is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy, and [the movant] bears the burden of persuasion to clearly establish all four of these prerequisites.” Wreal, LLC v. … DTSA Under the DTSA, a plaintiff must establish three elements: (1) the plaintiff owned a qualifying trade secret; (2) the defendant misappropriated

Farrell v. Gulf-to-Bay Anesthesiology Associates, LLC

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 18, 2025

Ala., 168 F.3d at 411–412 (“The burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction falls on the party invoking removal.”). … The removing defendant must present documents that “contain an unambiguous statement that clearly establishes federal jurisdiction.” Lowery v. Ala.

Saldana Pacheco v. Mora Construction, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 8, 2024

Indeed, qualified FLSA counsel are abundant in this District and willing to take cases without contingency fees. … Further, in relation to the Agreement, Plaintiff is clearly compromising his FLSA claim, but the extent of that compromise is unclear because the amounts payable to Plaintiff are directly reduced by the amounts payable

MAVERICK MEDIA GROUP v. Hillsborough County, Fla.

508 F. Supp. 2d 1126 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 16, 2007

within public, charitable, educational or religious institutions); 7.02.02(R)(1) (which allows officials discretion to determine whether a sign is obscene); 7.03.02(D) (which fails to *1144 reference what types of signs qualify … Thus, by their size, Plaintiff's signs were clearly billboards under the old regulations. 23 .

American Charities for Reasonable Fundraising Regulation, Inc. v. Pinellas County

278 F. Supp. 2d 1301 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 24, 2003

Thomas Reynolds, an attorney with extensive experience litigating § 198B civil rights actions and who has been qualified as an attorneys’ fee expert on approximately one-hundred occasions, stated that he reviewed the time … Therefore, it unquestionably does not establish the current prevailing market rate.

Branch

District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 13, 2026

Although “[i]ntangible injuries sometimes qualify as concrete, [they do] not always. … Branch fails to clearly identify which defendants are the subject of either count, leaving both devoid of identification of any defendant. See id. at 5, 7.

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

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 21, 2025

If the claim was “adjudicated on the merits” in state court, § 2254(d) bars relitigation of the claim unless the state court’s decision (1) “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established … State, 700 So. 2d 370, 373 (Fla. 1997)] establishes a per se rule for the definition of common pocketknife, the rule may only be invoked by a defendant who establishes conclusively that the knife in question has a blade

Jones v. Bank of America

985 F. Supp. 2d 1320 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 19, 2013

Plaintiff alleges that she was employed by Defendant as a Vice President/Sales Manager, a position for which she was qualified, and that she was terminated on August 11, 2009, even though other younger vice presidents were … A plaintiffs complaint is permitted to “amplify, clarify, or more clearly focus” the allegations made by the plaintiff in an earlier administrative charge. Gregory, 355 F.3d at 1279-80 .

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

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

“The focus . . . is on whether the state court’s application of clearly established federal law is objectively unreasonable[;] . . . an unreasonable application is different from an incorrect one.” Bell v. … 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, 529 U.S. at 412.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Yun

208 F. Supp. 2d 1279 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 20, 2002

Although these annuities are immune from process under Florida law, Fla. Stats. § 222.14, this is not a Florida state court, and, as such, it is not bound by Florida law. Badgley v. … Yun depleted much larger sums both during and after the trial, when clearly a substantial judgment against her was imminent, but such expenditures, although telling of her attitude toward the authority of this Court, are