Case law

Echeverri v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 21, 2023

Plaintiff has not established the first two requirements for mandamus relief. … The first two requirements for mandamus jurisdiction are clearly not met.

Molbogot v. MarineMax East, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 11, 2022

Brill to establish causation, the law cited by Plaintiff regarding an expert’s failure to enumerate and eliminate alternative causes is inapplicable to the facts at hand. … Brill is qualified and proposes to give testimony that passes muster under Daubert. As such, he will not be excluded pretrial. Defendant's criticisms of 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 .

Manborde v. Suarez

District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 17, 2022

Court 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 … Claims Three and Seven thus allege that Suarez maliciously prosecuted Manborde.3 A malicious-prosecution claim is cognizable under § 1983 because it seeks to vindicate a “clearly established right under the Fourth

Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Crabtree

District Court, S.D. Florida · May 18, 2023

Dillard Paper Co., 120 F.3d 1181, 1186 (11th Cir. 1997) (“[T]he adjective ‘any’ is not ambiguous; it has a well-established meaning. . . . … United States, 25 F.4th 925, 935 (11th Cir. 2022) (refusing to read into the Oil Pollution Act a waiver of sovereign immunity because “Congress . . . knows how to waive sovereign immunity when it wants to”).

Moussy Salem

District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 27, 2024

Respondent contends that the Settlement Agreement’s definition of “Liabilities” clearly and broadly also applies to unaccrued liabilities. Id. at 9. … Put simply, Respondent’s position, barring any claims after the effective date of the Settlement Agreement, would “immunize him from any claims related to the African Businesses until the end of time” leaving Applicant

Farm Stores, Inc. v. Texaco, Inc.

577 F. Supp. 682 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Dec 29, 1983

Further, FARM STORES possesses enough indicia of entrepreneurial responsibility and risk to qualify for the protections provided by the PMPA. Accordingly, the following are findings of fact: a. … The Contract clearly pertains to “the supply of motor fuel which is sold, consigned or distributed under a trademark owned or controlled by a refiner.” 15 U.S.C. § 2801 (l)(B)(ii). 77.

Owings

District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 26, 2026

The Eleventh Circuit also requires that the class representatives have standing to sue and that the proposed class is adequately defined and clearly ascertainable. See Little v. … The Settlement Administrator is highly qualified to manage the entire process. Thus, “[t]he method of distributing the settlement benefits will be equitable and effective.”

Perez v. Dept. of Corrections

227 F. Supp. 2d 1298 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 30, 2002

established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.... 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); Breedlove v. … State, 641 So.2d 1362, 1366 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (certifying whether an element of the underlying qualifying felony can “also constitute the overt act necessary to prove [attempted felony murder]”).

Blanco v. Dugger

691 F. Supp. 308 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 11, 1988

The record establishes that, in this case, there were no such “atrocious” events or “substantial periods of reflection.” … In other words, Blanco is not entitled to an automatic exclusion from the class of death-sentence qualified convicts if the factors which apply to him happen to overlap.

Angulo v. Il Gabbiano Miami, LLC

District Court, S.D. Florida · Dec 9, 2019

An individual “must either be involved in the day-to-day operation or have some direct responsibility for the supervision of the employee” in order to qualify as an FLSA employer. Gonzalez v. … establishes that they are not “employers” under the FLSA.

Castillo Sanchez v. ABC Professional Tree Services, Inc.

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

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination through circumstantial evidence, a plaintiff must show that “(1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he suffered an adverse … If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the employer can rebut the inference of discriminatory intent by “clearly articulating in a reasonably specific manner a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for

Rodriguez v. NCL (Bahamas) LTD

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

Here, Norwegian fails to establish that the direct and primary objective of the Contract was to confer a benefit onto Norwegian. … App’x 448, 451 (11th Cir. 2010) (explaining defendant could not claim intended third party beneficiary status because “[t]o qualify as a third-party beneficiary, the purchase agreement had to be executed ‘for the primary

Marksman Security Corporation v. P.G. Security, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Florida · Dec 7, 2021

Plaintiff objects to the Report, arguing that, although the “Court has discretion to reduce the amount of profits to be awarded, a reduction to $0.00 is ‘clearly inadequate’” [ECF No. 208, p. 10]. … The Court agrees with the Report that this case qualifies as “exceptional” under the Lanham Act.

Moreno v. Carnival Corporation

District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 14, 2020

Plaintiff was given leave to amend the complaint to more clearly establish the factual and legal basis for her claims. (Id.). … Kitts and has never been incorporated, licensed, registered to do business and/or qualified to do business within the State of Florida or any other state in the United States.” (Decl. of Clayton Perkins, DE 27-1 ¶ 4).

Khan v. United States

District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 18, 2024

Then, on December 20, 2023, the Government filed a self-styled Motion for Relief Under FRCP 37 [ECF No. 311], which the Court again denied, cautioning the Government that the Motion contravened the Court’s clearly communicated … Because these arguments rise and fall together, the Court does not separately consider the issue of immunity and turns directly to causation.

Parker-Nashid v. Miami-Dade County

District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 27, 2024

At least two years passed between the lawsuit and Parker-Nashid’s termination – and such a long amount of time clearly fails to establish causation on its own. See Thomas v. … ) that she belongs to a protected class, (2) that she was subjected to an adverse employment action, (3) that she was qualified to perform the job in question, and (4) that her employer treated “similarly situated

James River Insurance Company v. R.I.C., Inc.

District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 7, 2025

As Plaintiff correctly points out, Korner’s LinkedIn page does not qualify as newly discovered evidence for the purpose of Rule 59(e) or 60(b). ECF No. [159] at 7. … [Defendant] clearly had the ability to research Korner’s LinkedIn page before judgment was entered, but she apparently failed to do so.” Id.

Rorie v. School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida

District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 4, 2024

“Establishing a prima facie case under the ADA requires a plaintiff to show that, at the time of the adverse employment action, [he] had a disability, [he] was a qualified individual, and [he] was subjected to unlawful … Although not clearly articulated to be changes in duties and responsibilities, the SAC alleges that Principal Castellano required Mr.

Harrington v. Veritext, LLC

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

“Citizenship, not residence, is the key fact . . . to establish diversity for a natural person. … The 4 The Colorado River decision introduced a fourth type of abstention, which applies “only when concurrent state and federal litigation exists, and the federal litigation does not qualify for abstention under any of