Case law

Linder v. Calero Portocarrero

747 F. Supp. 1452 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 17, 1990

The Court found that: Under this Article of the Constitution it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State. … See e.g., In re Baiz, 135 U.S. 403 , 10 S.Ct. 854 , 34 L.Ed. 222 (1890) (federal courts held not to have authority to review the refusal of the Department of State to issue immunity papers to the general counsel of a foreign

Diaz v. City of Plantation, Fla.

524 F. Supp. 2d 1352 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 18, 2006

In the Fire Suppression category, fifteen of the twenty-eight programs offered qualify for CEU credit for paramedics and EMTs (Id. Ex. … Therefore time spent performing medical calls is clearly nonexempt.

Perez v. Pop Florida Properties, LLC

District Court, S.D. Florida · May 5, 2020

Whatever form they come in, “the documents received by the defendant must contain an unambiguous statement that clearly establishes federal jurisdiction.” Id. at n.63. … damages, resulting from a voluntary act of Plaintiff, and containing an unambiguous statement that clearly establishes federal jurisdiction.”

Wendler v. Stone

350 F. Supp. 838 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 18, 1972

Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 , 91 S.Ct. 1858 , 29 L.Ed.2d 363 (1971), clearly establishes the principle that interest groups have no constitutional guarantee of representation in legislative halls. … Defendants apparently feel that once mathematical precision has been achieved in allocating the population among the districts, the redistricting is immune from attack. The Supreme Court has never gone that far.

West v. Town of Jupiter Island

146 F. Supp. 2d 1293 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Apr 20, 2001

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD The procedure for disposition of a summary judgment motion is well established. … It should be noted that Plaintiff does not clearly specify the life activities that are substantially limited by the alleged learning disabilities and obesity.

Plant v. Does

19 F. Supp. 2d 1316 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 27, 1998

This clearly indicates that the same individuals follow the band from concert to concert, selling their wares. Plaintiffs give no explanation as to why they are unable to obtain the identities of these individuals. … "To qualify as a party with standing to litigate, a person must show, first and foremost, 'an invasion of a legally protected interest’ that is 'concrete and particularized’ and 'actual or imminent.’ ” Arizonans for Official

Lewis, Matthew v. Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office

District Court, S.D. Florida · Dec 19, 2024

must “dismiss the complaint[] or any portion of the complaint,” when it is (1) “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted[;]” or (2) “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Plaintiff has established an objectively serious medical need. See, e.g., Johnson v. Dixon, No. 23-CV-23021, 2023 WL 6481252, at *4 (S.D. Fla.

Fountain Shoppes, LLC v. Great American Insurance Company of New York

District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 5, 2025

lack of a substantive response, combined with the relatively scant information Plaintiff has provided about its experts in the record, make it difficult for the Court to conclude that Plaintiff has met its burden of establishing … Which is clearly outlined in his report how he and his office inspected the property after the vehicle crash. [DE 57] ¶¶ 24, 36.

United States v. Gutman

95 F. Supp. 2d 1337 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Apr 28, 2000

Notwithstanding, the Defendant bears the burden of clearly demonstrating acceptance of responsibility and must present more than just a guilty plea in order to establish his entitlement to a downward adjustment in his offense … U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 provides that if a defendant clearly accepts responsibility for his offense, his offense level should be decreased by two-levels.

Toloza v. Ruiz

District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 5, 2024

The question of whether Ruiz was Plaintiffs’ employer is clearly intertwined with the merits of Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims. See Alvarez Perez v. … Given Count III combines Torres’ Florida and federal law claims, her state and FLSA claims are clearly intertwined. (See FAC ¶¶ 41–57).

Association for Disabled Americans, Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co.

211 F.R.D. 457 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 19, 2002

Clearly, commonality and typicality are sufficiently established for certification of this class. AHM, 2000 WL 1809979 at *2, 2000 U.S. Dist. … Clearly, the Consent Decree’s non-inclusion of a right to opt out was fair and reasonable. .

In re Managed Care Litigation

209 F.R.D. 678 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 26, 2002

Consideration is given to: (i) whether plaintiffs’ counsel are qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation; and (ii) whether the named plaintiff has interests antagonistic to those of the … The two subclasses, although smaller in number, still clearly meet the numerosity requirement.

Doe v. Board of County Commissioners

783 F. Supp. 1379 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 30, 1992

In an extensive analysis, Justice Scalia traced the non-retroactivity presumption of Georgetown to the Court’s established position prior to Bradley. Id. 110 S.Ct. at 1579-88 . … The Act’s Republican sponsor, Senator Danforth, clearly stated that, “[T]he original cosponsors, who are the authors of the effective date provision, do not intend for the bill to have any retroactive effect or application

Francis, Heninston v. Wellpath

District Court, S.D. Florida · May 30, 2025

. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the district court shall dismiss an action that “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … App’x 665, 669 (11th Cir. 2016) (“The complaint must introduce facts that plausibly establish each essential element of the asserted cause of action.”).

Mt. Hawley Insurance Co. v. Miami River Port Terminal, LLC

228 F. Supp. 3d 1313 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 6, 2017

Augustave’s Underlying Complaint clearly reflects that his entire claim is based on events that occurred as a result of the joint venture between MRPT and P&L, which is not covered by the Policy. … Whether or not it was the Gonzalezes’ intent to include MRPT as a Named Insured in the Policy is immaterial, because it was clearly not Mt. Hawley’s.

Marrero v. Amazon.com Services LLC

District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 19, 2024

Plaintiff insists she meets her evidentiary burden for establishing a serious health condition. … Plaintiff maintains she presents sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of fact as to whether she was disabled, qualified, and given an accommodation. (See Resp. 5–13).

Harper v. Vilsack

District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 26, 2024

This is clearly untrue. (See SAC ¶¶ 106, 122). To the extent Defendant wishes to argue Plaintiff should have separated her theories into separate counts, the Court has already rejected this argument. … “To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must show that (1) [s]he has a disability, (2) [s]he is otherwise qualified for the position, and (3) [s]he was subjected to unlawful

BLUESTAREXPO, INC. v. Enis

District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 9, 2022

A plaintiff who was defrauded and files a federal court lawsuit against the alleged fraudsters may well be in a sympathetic situation, but that status does not confer immunity from discovery obligations. … A final ruling will await trial, because Judge Scola will need to determine at trial whether Plaintiff established the business records exception and established that Development in Motion authorized Bluestar to act as

Manno v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC

289 F.R.D. 674 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 26, 2013

Manno qualifies as the “called party” under this interpretation. … Rule 23(b) Requirements “In addition to establishing the Rule 23(a) requirements, a plaintiff must also establish that the proposed class satisfies at least one of the three requirements listed in Rule 23(b).” Little v.

Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc. v. Tenet Healthcare Corp.

502 F. Supp. 2d 1237 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 2, 2007

This is not the same as determining the amount of outliers Tenet would have received if it had charged some lesser reasonable amount for its inpatient care that would not qualify as a theft. … Clearly, the statute does not envision paying out additional reimbursements merely for a hospital’s charges that exceed a certain threshold.