Case law

Lee v. Korol

District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 31, 2021

Apr. 17, 2019) (“Courts have previously held that pre-suit demand letters can qualify as ‘other papers’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3).”) (collecting cases); Sibilia v. Makita Corp., 674 F. … satisfied where plaintiff’s quantified damages meant that the “defendant need[ed] only make up a difference of less than $10,000 in controversy to keep this case in federal court” and “‘a fair and impartial mind’ would clearly

INTERN. CAUCUS OF LABOR COM. v. Dade County, Fla.

724 F. Supp. 917 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 17, 1989

Having outlined the categories of forums established by the United States Supreme Court, the Court will address the nature of the MIA and compare it to these established forums. … We conclude that the statute clearly and precisely delineates its reach in words of common understanding. (footnote citation omitted).

BUTTS v. ALN GROUP, LLC

District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 8, 2021

The exceptions to this rule are narrowly drawn, and are intended to allow jurisdictional dismissals only in those cases where the federal claim is clearly immaterial or insubstantial. … As stated at the Hearing, Plaintiff’s factual allegations are sufficient to establish her status as a seaman at this stage in the litigation.

Goldman v. Brain Tunnelgenix Technologies Corp.

District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 13, 2024

“Where a defendant seeking dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) does not provide legal authority in support of its arguments, it has failed to satisfy its burden of establishing its entitlement to dismissal.” … Zandford clearly held because each sale of the client’s securities resulted in an action where the broker took the client’s sale proceeds, that type of conduct was connected for purposes of a scheme within the meaning of

Edge Systems LLC v. Aguila

186 F. Supp. 3d 1330 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 9, 2016

Aug. 7, 2014) (“Registration of a trademark establishes a rebuttable presumption that it is distinc *1347 tive.”). … The Du-boys Handpiece- pictured below clearly meets this limitation. [[Image here]] According to Dr.

Burns v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 26, 2025

both a qualifying disability and an inability to perform past relevant work.” … Carr’s opinion, and established substantial support for why Dr. Carr’s opinion was unpersuasive.

Corn v. City of Lauderdale Lakes

771 F. Supp. 1557 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 30, 1991

Deprivation of Property Interest The State Court Action established that CORN had acquired vested rights in the zoning that existed before July 12, 1977. … part: Every person who, under color of [state law], subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Peter Coppola Beauty, LLC v. Casaro Labs, Ltd.

108 F. Supp. 3d 1323 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 8, 2015

A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary and drastic remedy” that should be granted only if the moving party has clearly established four elements: (1) substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable … Qualifying relationships include, but are not limited to, preceding and succeeding owners of property, bailee and bailor, and as-signee and assignor.

K3 Enterprises, Inc. v. Sasowski

District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 7, 2022

“When considering a motion for summary judgment, including one asserting qualified immunity, ‘courts must construe the facts and draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and when conflicts … “If a person seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant establishes prima facie that the restraint is reasonably necessary, the person opposing enforcement has the burden of establishing that the contractually specified

Zagury

District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 11, 2026

Indeed, factual allegations in a complaint may be “clearly baseless” if they are contradicted by other allegations. Battle v. … Similarly, even if the text messages did not advertise “discounts and promotions” specifically, they nonetheless plausibly could qualify as “telephone solicitations” or “telephone sales calls” for purposes

Crawford v. West India Carriers, Inc.

337 F. Supp. 262 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 30, 1971

He also admitted that he did not know whether Captain Wilson was qualified to make an accurate judgment as to the condition of the cable and when it should be changed. … It is within the province of the Court to establish reasonable compensation for the salvors and the Court has sufficient evidence for that purpose.

Simon v. Pierre

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

Although Plaintiff filed these actions separately, a review of both complaints establishes that the cases stem from the same set of facts and plead the same causes of action (i.e., money laundering, conspiracy, fraud … “Factual frivolity means ‘clearly baseless’ on the facts, and legal frivolity means an ‘indisputably meritless’ legal theory.” Shell v. Von Saal, No. 08-61154, 2009 WL 960809, at *1–2 (S.D. Fla.

Jones v. Yaffey

District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 23, 2021

Thus, the Amended Complaint clearly qualifies under the “most common” category of shotgun pleadings—those where the allegations of each count not only adopt a general factual allegation section but also roll “into every … Here, the Report found no allegations sufficient to establish a causal connection. The Court agrees.

United Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Sanctuary Surgical Centre, Inc.

5 F. Supp. 3d 1350 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 6, 2014

In determining whether United’s fraud-based state claims “relate to” ERISA, the court addresses two issues: (1) whether the benefit plans involved qualify as ERISA “employee benefit plan,” and (2) whether plaintiffs fraudulent … (United’s complaint does not clearly allege whether the claims involved were processed under individual or group health policies).

Hightower v. Dixon

District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 9, 2025

Once a prisoner establishes that his claim is exhausted, he must show that the state courts’ adjudication of the claim “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined … established federal law.

In Re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation

160 F. Supp. 2d 1365 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 25, 2001

Illinois Brick is equally dispositive, for Arizona’s legislature “clearly intended to strive for uniformity between federal and state antitrust laws” in enacting the state Antitrust Act. Wedgewood Inv. Corp. v. … Hence, the defendants argue that they are immune to suit under TPA because “the conduct alleged in the complaint is predominantly interstate in character.” (Defs.’ Mot. at 18.)

Manning

District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 3, 2025

Rather, a plaintiff must set forth general factual allegations that ‘plausibly and clearly allege a concrete injury[.]”’ Tsao v. Captiva MVP Rest. … not establish standing.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Charnas

District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 15, 2024

“Specifically, an act of production ‘could qualify as testimonial if conceding the existence, possession and control, and authenticity of the documents tended to incriminate’ the producing party.” Id. … And as discussed, Charnas’s counsel acknowledging compliance with the Commission’s preservation requirement does not establish that Charnas in fact possesses responsive messages, or that those messages even exist.

Patt v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 23, 2024

Plaintiff does not offer case law supporting the proposition that a medical opinion not offered with a reasonable degree of medical certainty could qualify as an expert opinion. As such, Dr. … In short, the record paints a far more complicated picture than a plaintiff in good health who was clearly injured externally by the tightening of his seat belt.

Federal Trade Commission v. Simple Health Plans, LLC

District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 5, 2021

When discussing § 19, the Supreme Court, using qualifying language, focused on actions brought for violations of cease and desist orders, § 19(a)(2), and not rule violations, § 19(a)(1): “Congress specified that the consumer … The Court is not obligated to expressly state the grounds for its authority when such authority clearly exists. nothing will change.