Case law

LMP v. School Bd. of Broward County

516 F. Supp. 2d 1305 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 27, 2007

Defendants also assert qualified immunity as a defense to the § 1985 claim. … Accordingly, Defendants qualified immunity defense fails.

Sea Lift, Inc. v. Refinadora Costarricense De Petroleo, S.A.

601 F. Supp. 457 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Dec 27, 1984

The affidavit of Plaintiff’s process server failed to demonstrate that he was qualified to serve process in Costa Rica, and did not mention who the individual was who accepted service on behalf of RE-COPE. 24. … may be waived clearly modifies the rule that lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be asserted at any time.

Lopez v. City of Opa-Locka

District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 25, 2025

Qualified Immunity. Qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights[.]” … establish the law for qualified immunity purposes.

Dormeus

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

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “Generally speaking, it is proper to grant a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds when the ‘complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.’” Corbitt v.

White v. Miami-Dade County

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

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To prove that Patterson is not entitled to qualified immunity, Plaintiff must show (1) Patterson violated a constitutional right and (2) “that right was clearly established.” Id.

Parra v. John Alden Life Insurance

22 F. Supp. 2d 1360 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 1, 1998

Plaintiff alleges that he was diagnosed with the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (“AIDS”) in approximately December 1996. … The Court will therefore proceed on the assumption that Plaintiff's insurance plan did qualify as an ERISA plan. Cf. 29 U.S.C.A. § 1002 (1) (describing ERISA plans). 2 .

Webb v. R&B Holding Co., Inc.

992 F. Supp. 1382 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 21, 1998

Moreover, Plaintiffs superiors specifically told Plaintiff on several occasions that she must discontinue her insubordinate behavior, See Dale 797 F.2d at 463 (granting summary judgment when “the record clearly established … FIserv CIR, Inc., 1995 WL 431249 , at *8 (N.D.Ill.1995) (granting summary judgment and observing that “[a]lthough [plaintiff’s] technical behavior was acceptable, the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that he

Smith v. Slimak

District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 29, 2025

To show that Slimak is not entitled to qualified immunity, Plaintiff must plead facts that, when taken as true, establish that: (1) Slimak violated Plaintiff’s constitutional right(s), and (2) the “right was clearly established … Next, to overcome Slimak’s qualified immunity defense, the Court must analyze whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the incident. De Veloz, 756 F.

Smith v. City of Plantation

19 F. Supp. 2d 1323 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 11, 1998

Smith has the burden of establishing that officer Alu had a special relationship with Smith. … However, this statute, on its face, clearly applies only to the state and its subdivisions. Smith has not established that, as a matter of law, Fla.Stat. § 768.14 applies to officers of the state and its subdivisions.

Hospital Development & Service Corp. v. North Broward Hospital District

619 F. Supp. 535 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 16, 1985

different transfer policies, this precludes an assertion by defendant that there is a clearly articulated state policy supporting the defendants allegedly anti-competitive conduct. … Broward County has established by the affidavit of Henry *542 R.

Kruger v. Jenne

164 F. Supp. 2d 1330 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 19, 2000

The allegations clearly appear sufficient to allege that Kruger is a “qualified individual” within the meaning of the ADA. … Finally, Jenne argues that the granting of qualified immunity is the rule, rather than the exception, and that the plaintiff has not met his burden of showing that Jenne is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Allstar Care Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of South Carolina, Corp.

184 F. Supp. 2d 1295 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 30, 2002

Standard of Review The Eleventh Circuit has clearly established the standard of review for a motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. … The Jurisdictional Scope of the Medicare Act Actions arising under the Medicare Act are clearly not within the jurisdiction of the Court.

Alejandre v. Republic of Cuba

996 F. Supp. 1239 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Dec 17, 1997

The record of this trial clearly establishes that all of these requirements have been met. … De la Peña, Carlos Alberto Costa, and Armando Alejandre violated clearly established principles of international law. More importantly, they were inhumane acts against innocent civilians.

Orange Ridge, Inc. v. State of Fla.

696 F. Supp. 600 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 22, 1988

A waiver to be sued in state court, however, does not ipso facto establish the state’s consent to be sued in federal court. Terrel v. U.S., 783 F.2d 1562 (11th Cir. 1986). … Thus, the task at hand is clearly defined.

Von Meysenbug v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

54 F. Supp. 100 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 9, 1944

Ordinarily, a telegraph company in accepting and transmitting a message is entitled to a qualified privilege. … The immunity of a telegraph company from liability to a defamed person when it transmits a libelous message must be broad enough to enable the company to render its public service efficiently and with dispatch.

Williams v. Miami-Dade County

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

“Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged action.” Bailey v. … Thus, to defeat a qualified immunity defense on a motion to dismiss, the operative complaint must plausibly plead that the defendant violated plaintiffs’ federal rights and those rights were clearly established.

Bain v. McCord

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

Qualified immunity “shields public officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged action.” … Bain has not established that qualified immunity is not appropriate. To do so, Mr.

Rios v. Direct Mail Express, Inc.

435 F. Supp. 2d 1199 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 23, 2006

Section 2724(a) of the DPPA establishes a civil cause of action for violation of the DPPA. … Bd. of Trustees of Georgia Military College, 970 F.2d 785, 796 (11th Cir.1992) (stating “[a]t any rate, if qualified immunity is not available to private citizens who rely unsuspectingly on state laws they did not create

Merker Ex Rel. Estate of Merker v. Miami-Dade County Florida

485 F. Supp. 2d 1349 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Apr 27, 2007

Disability As part of her prima facie case under Title II of the ADA, Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that his wife was a qualified individual with a disability and that she was discriminated against in the receipt … Given that the case was previously tried in the state circuit court, and also because it raises state law issues of sovereign immunity, remand is appropriate.

Batista

District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 4, 2026

Regarding qualified immunity, Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ conduct constituted a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, because Defendant Warren knew or should have known what he was doing was wrong … conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.”