Case law

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

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 20, 2022

The Eleventh Circuit instructs: A state court’s decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if the state court either reaches … The Court finds the state court’s adjudication of this claim is not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law or based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.

Patel

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 27, 2026

BayCare concedes that Patel’s medical leave for childbirth qualifies as protected activity under the FMLA. Dkt. 58 at 9–10. … Sept. 22, 2025); see also Keiper, 2024 WL 5119353, at *2 (“To establish a prima facie case for failure to accommodate under the PWFA, [the plaintiff] must allege facts sufficient to show: (1) she is a qualified individual

Latimer v. ROARING TOYZ, INC.

550 F. Supp. 2d 1345 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 13, 2008

An implied nonexciusive license may be established through the parties’ course of dealing. … If Defendants establish that the photographs qualify as works for hire, Fisher and Roaring Toyz had the right to unfettered use of the photographs.

Oswald v. Diggs

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 1, 2022

Because the Court dismisses Count I on other substantive grounds, it will not address whether Diggs is entitled to qualified immunity. See Faucher v. … Oswald responds that Diggs misapplies the six-part test to establish a deprivation of procedural due procedure.

Schulman v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

SSR 18-1p discusses the method to determine an established onset date in disability claims. SSR 18-1p, 2018 WL 4945639. … While this letter was also drafted after the relevant period, it clearly relates to the time at issue as do the later opinion letters.

Jackson-Shaw Co. v. Jacksonville Aviation Authority

510 F. Supp. 2d 691 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 8, 2007

Laws 464 , §§ 3(1) and (8), and that the JAA’s power to lease is not qualified in any way by a statutory requirement to advertise for bids. … In that case, unlike the instant case, the “evidence clearly establish[ed] that it was only after the [plaintiff] filed a lawsuit that the documents he had previously sought by written request to the Town were finally turned

Claudio v. DeLoach

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 12, 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.” Denton v.

Batson v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (St. Johns County)

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

Upon thorough review of the record, this Court concludes that the state court’s adjudication of these claims was not contrary to clearly established federal law, did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established … Upon thorough review of the record, this Court concludes 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

D'amico v. Inch

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 1, 2022

Code r. 33-103.011(2) (“An extension of the above-stated time periods shall be granted when it is clearly demonstrated by the inmate to the satisfaction of the reviewing authority . . . or the Secretary that it was not … Burnside we established a two-step process for resolving motions to dismiss prisoner lawsuits for failure to exhaust. 541 F.3d at 1082.[6] First, district courts look

Norfolk Southern Corp. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.

279 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 7, 2003

Marwan Sadat, there is insufficient evidence establishing causation. See Doc. 135. However, Shell argues in its motion in limine that the expert testimony is inadmissible. … Rather, Shell argues that Grip is not qualified to testify as to the “probable” corrosion of the pipeline. See Doc. 115 at 10.

McMahon v. Presidential Airways, Inc.

410 F. Supp. 2d 1189 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 24, 2006

The state-law claims at issue in this case clearly raise substantial contested federal issues that support removal jurisdiction. … Even when such a question exists in a state court action, “the exercise of federal jurisdiction is subject to a possible veto”; “the federal issue will ultimately qualify for a federal forum only if federal jurisdiction is

Pimentel v. Strength20, LLC

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

The Eleventh Circuit utilizes the eight Aimable factors to consider whether an entity qualifies as an employer under the FLSA. See id. … Feb. 3, 2021) (“[T]o state a claim under the FMWA, Plaintiff must establish that she was employed by an employer covered by the FLSA during the period involved . . . .”).

Arnold

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 30, 2026

According to the Arnolds, the “plain language of the [warranty] clearly states that [Fountaine Pajot Company] and not [Fountaine Pajot S.A.] … Having abandoned that argument, the Arnolds have not carried their burden of establishing that service was proper.

Barrett v. Secretary, Department of Corrections(Citrus County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 11, 2020

“Clearly established Federal law” means holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court “as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.” Id. at 1288–89. … This is neither contrary to clearly established law nor an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of evidence.

Olson v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 1, 2025

With these principles in mind, I turn to the merits of Takeda’s fee motion, beginning with the question of whether Takeda qualifies as the prevailing party. … The third Sullivan factor—whether the Court dismissed the case prior to trial or held a trial on the merits—clearly favors Takeda. Sullivan, 773 F.2d at 1189.

Masouras v. Lexington

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 24, 2020

Although labeled as a list of “extra-contractual damages,” the list clearly includes a prejudgment interest amount of $5,173.08, which is not included in determining the amount in controversy. … Feb. 2, 2007) (noting in a removal case that “subsequent matters which affect the amount in controversy will not retroactively establish jurisdiction”); Poudy v.

Haynes v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (Duval County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 13, 2024

application 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. … application 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.

Smalls v. Secretary Florida Department Of Corrections (Duval County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 21, 2021

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 … 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.

Humbertson

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

(Dkt. 63) Plaintiff asserts that this qualifies as a judicial admission and once an admission is made, the subject matter cannot be reopened absent the showing of exceptional circumstances. … The Court rejects this argument, as a legal position taken in a motion does not qualify as a judicial admission. Cf. Starbuck v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 349 F. Supp. 3d 1223, 1233 (M.D.

Howell v. Perez-Lugo

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

against a defendant who is immune from such relief.2 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B); 1915A. “A claim is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or fact.” Bilal v. … In addition, Howell fails to allege any facts that establish the liability of Centurion/MHM Services.