Case law

Marrari v. Medical Staffing Network Holdings, Inc.

395 F. Supp. 2d 1169 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 27, 2005

(v) “Bespeaks Caution” Doctrine Finally, to the extent the statements are alleged to be misleading by Plaintiffs are not immune under the PSLRA’s safe harbor, the Court concludes in the allegations in the Complaint regarding … Specifically, the Prospectus contained the following risk disclosures: IF WE ARE UNABLE TO ATTRACT QUALIFIED NURSES AND ALLIED HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS FOR OUR HEALTHCARE STAFFING BUSINESS, OUR BUSINESS COULD BE NEGATIVELY

Parness v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

291 F. Supp. 2d 1347 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 13, 2003

Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 , 109 S.Ct. 948 , 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989), however, the Supreme Court established a range of standards to be used when reviewing the decisions of an ERISA plan administrator or fiduciary: [A] denial of benefits … Here, the plan documents clearly grant Metlife discretion to interpret the plan, and, indeed, Parness and Metlife do not dispute this point.

King v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Highlands County)

District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 15, 2022

An “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law. Id. at 410. … Therefore, the State court’s adjudication resulted in a decision that was contrary to and involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Marrett v. Florida Department of Corrections

District Court, S.D. Florida · Dec 19, 2022

An “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law. Id. at 410. … Thus, Marrett fails to establish deficient performance and Ground Four is denied.

Pottinger v. City of Miami

810 F. Supp. 1551 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 16, 1992

However, approximately 200 of these are “program beds,” for which one must qualify. In addition, some of these beds are set aside for families. … First, such relief must protect the homeless from one approach that clearly is not the answer to homelessness, that is, arresting homeless people for innocent, involuntary acts.

Mortimer v. Florida Department of Corrections

District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 14, 2023

In the habeas context, clearly established federal law refers to the holdings of the Supreme Court’s decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision. Hall v. … The United States Supreme Court clearly established the law governing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

Andreasen v. Progressive Express Insurance Co.

276 F. Supp. 3d 1317 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 25, 2017

The doctrine of fraudulent joinder discounts allegations against a non-diverse party where the removing party can prove either that “(1) there is no possibility the plaintiff can establish a cause of action against the resident … Progressive's principal place of business is in Ohio and its state of incorporation is Ohio, and thus, it qualifies as a foreign corporation. [ECF Nos. 1, p. 2 n. 1; 1-1, p. 6]. .

Arora v. Miami-Dade County, Florida

District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 25, 2024

action; (3) the employer treated similarly situated employees outside of the protected class more favorably; and (4) plaintiff was qualified to do the job.” … Arora asserts he was not qualified to lead the Quality Assurance Initiative and struggled to get the necessary resources to succeed with the initiative. Resp. at 5. Despite these concerns, Mr.

Beauliere v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION

District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 29, 2020

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

Blanco v. Samuel

District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 5, 2022

Blanco has failed to establish she is entitled to summary judgment as to her overtime claims. … Where the parties diverge is the third element: whether Blanco has established she did not “reside” in that household.

BLUESTAREXPO, INC. v. Enis

District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 25, 2021

In opposing the Defendants’ position that Bluestar has not sufficiently pleaded facts establishing the existence of a fiduciary relationship, Bluestar insists (1) it has “cleanly set forth . . . facts establishing Enis … The complaint’s allegations, however, clearly undermine the Defendants’ characterization of the facts as well as Bluestar’s breach-of-contract claim.

Varner v. Dometic Corporation

District Court, S.D. Florida · Apr 26, 2022

As such, the Court’s review is limited to evaluating whether Judge Otazo-Reyes’ order is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). That is a highly deferential standard. … And indeed, it is well-established that a party must meet the qualifications set forth by Rule 702 by a preponderance of the evidence. E.g., Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592 n.10 (1993).

Delgado-Ros v. Florida Department of Corrections

District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 21, 2022

An “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law. Id. at 410 (emphasis omitted). … And the AEDPA permits habeas relief from a state court’s merits decision only if the decision (1) “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme

Davis v. Great Northern Insurance Company

District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 11, 2023

On February 5, 2021, Marino advised Chubb that Akam was rejecting Chubb’s qualified defense. See (DE [202-21]). … Wrongful Refusal to Defend “It is well-established that an insurer does not breach the duty to defend by offering to defend subject to a reservation of rights.”

Acosta v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 10, 2024

Acosta can work as a private industry mail sorter is harmless because there are other jobs she is qualified to do that exist in significant numbers in the national economy.” Id. (citing Valdez, 808 F. … Clearly, parties are not to be afforded a ‘second bite at the apple’ when they file objections to an R & R.” Marlite, Inc. v. Eckenrod, No. 10-23641- CIV, 2012 WL 3614212, at *2 (S.D. Fla.

Herron v. United States

District Court, S.D. Florida · Dec 3, 2020

A defendant “can overcome it if he establishes cause and prejudice.” Id. (citation omitted). Cause. … Where a [section] 924(o) verdict firmly rests on a clearly qualifying drug- trafficking predicate, there may not be a concern about a possible defect in a related crime of violence predicate.

Waters v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 1, 2024

Plaintiff cites ample case law regarding the well-established collateral-source rule prohibiting a defendant from reducing its liability by any recovery amounts from collateral sources. Hillenburg v. … Defendant contends that the Lab Report fails as a business record because that exception to hearsay requires a custodian or other qualified witness who can attest to the record-keeping process. Fed. R.

Socket Solutions, LLC v. Import Global, LLC

District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 29, 2024

Merely attaching the Kao and other prior art references does not establish anticipation-- by a long shot. … Insalaco’s testimony that “[a]bsent a preliminary injunction, [Plaintiff] would lose the value of its patent [as] well as suffer irreparable harm,” on the grounds that the Court did not qualify Mr.

Mazpule v. Xenios Corp.

District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 19, 2021

Defendants shall amend their answers to clearly state the scope of response and whether any responsive answer has been withheld on the basis of the objection. … The burden of establishing substantial justification (or other exception) is on the losing party to the Rule 37 motion. See Procaps S.A., 2013 WL 6238647, at *5.

Preisler v. Eastpoint Recovery Group, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Florida · May 25, 2021

Generally, a tangible injury qualifies as concrete. Trichell, 964 F.3d at 997 (citing Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1549). … ) (stating that a plaintiff asserting an overshadowing violation pursuant to “section 1692g(b) cannot simply assert a bare violation of the statute to invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court; rather, he must ‘clearly