Case law

Mostacci v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 26, 2024

If the ALJ discredits this testimony, then the ALJ “‘must clearly articulate explicit and adequate reasons for’ doing so.” Id. (quoting Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1210). … If an impairment meets only some criteria, then it will not qualify, no matter the severity of the impairment. Id.

Bemesderfer v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 17, 2023

UPS fails to demonstrate that the driver positions for which the Plaintiff applied were filled by qualified employees with greater seniority. … The general rule is that the employer’s burden “is generally quite high,” but the employer enjoys a “significantly lowered” burden when “the job clearly requires a high degree of skill and the economic and human risks

Bunyan v. United States of America, Department of Veteran Affairs

District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 20, 2020

However, there are certain exceptions to this limited waiver of sovereign immunity. … “[J]udicial claims are allowed if they amplify, clarify, or more clearly focus the allegations” in the administrative complaint, but “allegations of new acts of discrimination are inappropriate.”

Sehringer v. Big Lots, Inc.

532 F. Supp. 2d 1335 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 3, 2007

In order to establish jurisdiction over the [Defendants], therefore. … The Haubiel Affidavit clearly states that Plaintiff Sehringer “is not and has never been an employee of Big Lots, Inc.” (Doc. # 3 at 3).

Morris v. Lincare, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 18, 2023

As for Counts II and III, Defendant argues that the voicemails referenced are not violative of the FTSA as they do not qualify as solicitations. … Thus, the Eleventh Circuit has established that a shotgun pleading is an unacceptable form of establishing a claim for relief.

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

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 17, 2025

application of clearly established federal law. … 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.

McWilliams v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 4, 2023

McCreadie on her notes clearly prejudiced Milne. Dr. … work] as described by the claimant.”).3 “[W]hen the claimant’s previous work qualifies as a composite job, the ALJ must consider the particular facts of the individual case to consider whether

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

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

In this context, clearly established federal law consists of the governing legal principles set forth in the decisions of the United States Supreme Court at the time the state court issued its decision. … 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

Cifuentes

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

In Defendant’s view, this admission means that Plaintiff cannot establish entitlement to an FMLA benefit for count six or conduct protected under the FMLA for count seven. … For each challenged count, Plaintiff shall ensure that the count alleges not only the elements but also factual allegations supporting the elements and that the count clearly connects the elements and

Medina v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 25, 2022

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.2 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B); 1915A. … 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.”

Williams v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Flagler County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 5, 2022

of clearly established federal law, and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. … of clearly established federal law, and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.

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

District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 25, 2022

The Eleventh Circuit instructs: A state court’s decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if the state court either reaches … If the state court applied clearly established federal law to reasonably determined facts when determining a claim on its merits, “a federal habeas court may not disturb the state court’s decision unless its error

Serian v. JetBlue Airways Corporation

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 11, 2024

To establish a prima facie case for failure to 1 “Deferral states are those that prohibit the unlawful employment practice at issue and have established state or local authorities to grant or seek relief for such practice … Aug. 11, 2021) (dismissing retaliation claim when plaintiff relied only on temporal proximity and did “not clearly identify any of the dates associated with most of the adverse employment actions”); Short v.

Duvivier v. Florida State Prison

District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 19, 2022

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.”

Parke

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 31, 2026

Yet Plaintiff qualified this statement, both in her declaration and at the hearing, stating that she produced all the responsive information that she had, “except for private family, financial, [and] health information … Fla. 2011) (“Under Rule 72(a), a [party] may object to a nondispositive order entered by a magistrate judge, but in order to prevail, it must establish that the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”

Lumpkin

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

Burnside we established a two-step process for resolving motions to dismiss prisoner lawsuits for failure to exhaust. 541 F.3d at 1082. … If this occurs, the complainant must clearly indicate this fact when filing at the next step.”).

Lofton v. Espino

District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 5, 2020

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." … Here, Lofton has not alleged sufficient facts against Singletary to establish his entitlement to relief.

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

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 31, 2023

After a review of the record and the applicable law, the 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 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.

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

District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 7, 2021

If the state court applied clearly established federal law to reasonably determined facts when . … The state court’s ruling was 19 _not contrary to and did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

Morgan v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (Nassau County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 28, 2023

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