Case law

Sexton v. Carnival Corporation

District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 14, 2021

In Francis, the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on a negligence theory that was clearly not challenged in the underlying motion. Francis v. … Moreover, contrary to Carnival’s argument, blood relatives or formal stepchildren not the only persons who qualify as dependents under DOHSA.

Commodores Point Terminal Co. v. Hudnall

283 F. 150 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 9, 1922

The qualifying clause applies to cases where there is more than one plaintiff, as well as more than one defendant. This is consistent with rules 37 and 38. Rule 37 ( 198 Fed. xxviii , 115 C. C. … Clearly the effective exercise of the jurisdiction of tliis court requires all the defendants to he joined as parties to this bill. The motions of Charles F. and Mary E.

Nance v. United States

District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 31, 2022

Movant’s counsel then asked for — and received — a break in the proceedings to explain more clearly the maximum possible penalties Movant faced. (See id. 12:6–13). … The Eleventh Circuit has unequivocally “held that a conviction for Hobbs Act robbery ‘clearly qualifies as a crime of violence’ under the elements clause.” Id.

Smith v. Rosado

District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 11, 2024

(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 from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Taliaferro … To state a viable claim in his amended complaint, Plaintiff must provide more factual details, divide his claims into numbered paragraphs and separate counts, and clearly specify which Defendants are alleged to be responsible

Darling v. Zavaleta

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

(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 from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). … held that “[a] district court may conclude a case has little or no chance of success and dismiss the complaint before service of process when it determines from the face of the complaint that the factual allegations are ‘clearly

Farias v. O'Malley

District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 24, 2025

To qualify for benefits, a claimant must be disabled within the meaning of the Act. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 423 (standard for DIB), 1382 (standard for SSI). … Further, [Plaintiff] did not easily establish rapport until his father left the room, when [Plaintiff] began to engage and establish rapport.

Self v. Bomnin Motors

District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 17, 2024

(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 from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). … deficiency and dispute, Self has set forth a violation under the FCRA sufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction. B.

Gustave v. Florida Department of Corrections

District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 14, 2022

An “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law. Id. at 410. … Even summary rejection of a claim, without explanation, qualifies as an adjudication on the merits, warranting deference. See Meders v. Warden, Ga. Diagnostic Prison, 911 F.3d 1335, 1351 (11th Cir. 2019).

Fripp v. Bradshaw

District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 4, 2022

This filing fee will be collected even if the Court dismisses the case because it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks money damages against a defendant who is immune … Plaintiff has established that he cannot at present pay even the partial filing fee.

Aguila v. RQM+ LLC

District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 12, 2025

A federal standard controls whether a person qualifies as an agent authorized to receive service. Louis v. Roger Gladstone Law Grp., No. 12–80427–CIV, 2013 WL 12145975, at *4 (S.D. Fla. … “[T]he determination of who qualifies as an agent depends on the facts of the case.” Id. (citing Direct Mail, 840 F.2d at 688).

In Re America Online, Inc. Version 5.0 Software Litigation

168 F. Supp. 2d 1359 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Apr 19, 2001

These provisions clearly contemplate a situation where an outsider, or someone without authorization, accesses a computer. … Instead, they provide that "access” must be to "a protected computer," and they do not qualify the term "damage” with any limitations. 10 . The current version of the CFAA sets this amount at $5,000. 11 .

mCom IP, LLC v. City National Bank of Florida

District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 11, 2025

Courts have since established general guidelines to follow in applying the Octane “exceptional” standard. … The District Court ruled in favor of the Defendant in the Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, so the Defendant is clearly the prevailing party in the case.

Zinn v. United States

835 F. Supp. 2d 1280 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 30, 2011

Preferential departure routes establish traffic flow so all of the aircraft are going out in the same direction. … Here, the facts in the record clearly show otherwise.

Corsetti v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

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

An “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law. Id. at 410 (citation omitted). … Even summary rejection of a claim, without explanation, qualifies as an adjudication on the merits, warranting deference. See Meders v. Warden, Ga. Diagnostic Prison, 911 F.3d 1335, 1351 (11th Cir. 2019).

Infante v. Jewish Community Services of South Florida, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Florida · Dec 12, 2024

The parties seem to agree that mental health counseling — in the abstract — could qualify as a field of science or learning. … The parties clearly do not agree whether Plaintiff was able, or entitled, to take a one-hour break. (See Pl.’s SOF ¶¶ 27–28; but see Def.’s Resp.

Llorente v. El Benaye

District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 31, 2025

no rights of custody as defined under the Hague Convention because her visitation rights do not qualify. … Here, Llorente clearly has rights of custody.

Walker v. Department of Corrections

District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 2, 2023

Ground 1: The trial court violated Petitioner’s clearly established due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments by summarily denying his Rule 3.850 motion without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing … Ground 2: State prosecutors violated Petitioner’s clearly established rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments by failing to disclose exculpatory information prior to trial, specifically, the fact that J.B.

Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. City of West Palm Beach

110 F. Supp. 2d 1367 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 27, 2000

deregulation, providing in pertinent part as follows: In regulating the railroad industry, it is the policy of the United States Government— (1) To allow, to the maximum extent possible, competition and the demand for services to establish … "[A]s the agency with authority delegated from Congress to implement the provisions of the ICCTA, the STB is uniquely qualified to determine whether state law or local law should be preempted ...Id. at *6 (citing CSX Transp

US Ex Rel. Wesco Distribution v. American Bridge

473 F. Supp. 2d 1227 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 8, 2007

Section 16081N, Part 1.4.1 of the Navy specifications require: “Contractor shall engage the services of a qualified testing organization to provide inspection, testing, calibration, and adjustment of the electrical distribution … It clearly shows the “left to right” orientation of the substation transformer and the switchgear for substation 4. Mr.

United States v. Stickle

355 F. Supp. 2d 1317 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 6, 2004

In any event, the facts establishing venue must be established at trial and determined by the jury. VI. … In Apex , the material discharged into the sea by the defendants was “... not clearly material whose discharge is forbidden by 33 C.F.R. § 151.10 (1996), ‘Control of discharge of oil.’ ” Id. at 1288 .