Case law

Bienaime v. Department of Children and Families

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

On the one hand, “a defendant should not be forced to expend substantial resources answering discovery when the plaintiff's claims clearly lack merit[.]” … Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); Florida law provides for the immunity of child protective investigators and Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. ECF No. [31].

Portnoy v. MEI Condominium Association, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 28, 2024

The subject matter of this statute is clearly the regulation of condominium associations, as its title suggests. … Nonetheless, it is well established that the Act provides for vicarious liability.”); cf. Haaland v.

Watkins v. Officer David Session

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

immunity. … It is Plaintiff’s argument that a review of his Complaint – Doc 86 – and his response – Doc 93 – to the defendants’ motion to dismiss will clearly show that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity[.]”).

United States v. Camacho

739 F. Supp. 1504 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 25, 1990

Otherwise, a defense lawyer could effectively confer use immunity on a client without any state action. … The evidence presented at the hearing does not establish that any of the on-scene statements met these standards.

L.M.P. ex rel. E.P. v. School Board

516 F. Supp. 2d 1294 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 27, 2007

The Triplets turned three on January 4, 2004 and there was no IEP established (Amended Complaint ¶¶ 97-101). … The Eleventh Circuit has clearly stated that the state administrative exhaustion requirement mandated by the IDEA also applies to non-IDEA claims that could have been brought under the *1305 IDEA.

Farinas v. Barnhart

321 F. Supp. 2d 1311 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 24, 2004

In order to qualify for federal public benefits, an alien is required to establish that she is a “qualified alien.” 8 U.S.C.A. § 1611 (a). … The plain meaning of the act clearly indicates that the plaintiffs adjusted status as a lawful permanent resident under NACARA qualifies as a ‘special status’ pursuant to the ‘Cuban/Haitian entrant’ exception.

Davis v. Bradshaw

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

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from individual-capacity suits for actions taken while performing a discretionary function so long as their conduct does not violate a ‘clearly established’ constitutional … To be entitled to qualified immunity, an officer must establish that he was acting within his discretionary authority during the incident at issue. Manners, 891 F.3d at 967.

Empire of Carolina, Inc. v. Mackle

108 F.R.D. 323 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 19, 1985

Under Rule 26(c)(7), there is no absolute privilege that immunizes trade secrets and similar confidential information from discovery. … Discovery may be denied if proof of relevancy or need is not established, but if relevancy and need are shown, the trade secret should be disclosed.

Flores v. American Airlines, Inc.

184 F. Supp. 2d 1287 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 29, 2002

To state a prima facie case under the ADA, Plaintiff must establish that: (1) he has a disability; (2) he is a qualified individual; and (3) he was discriminated against because of his disability. Pritchard v. … Whether Plaintiff Is A Qualified Individual In order to satisfy the second requirement of his prima facie case, Plaintiff must demonstrate that he is a “qualified individual.”

Gossard v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.

612 F. Supp. 2d 1242 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 19, 2009

Prima Facie Case Under the McDonnell Douglas analysis, to establish a prima facie case of discrimination Plaintiff must show that 1) she was a member of a protected class, 2) she was qualified for the position at issue, 3 … Plaintiff's argument that Theckston's response time to emails and phone calls was slower clearly cannot be considered an adverse employment action.

Farrell, Herman v. State Of Florida

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

“Clearly established Federal law” means “the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the United States Supreme Court’s] decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.” Williams v. … “[I]t is not an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law for a state court to decline to apply a specific legal rule that has not been squarely established by [the Supreme] Court.”

United States v. Cruz

618 F. Supp. 2d 1372 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Dec 30, 2008

Rather, the evidence clearly establishes that previously penalized positions taken by Cruz did not resurface in the investigation made for the instant action. … Finally, the public interest will clearly be served by an injunction.

Dorrego v. Public Health Trust of Miami Dade County

293 F. Supp. 2d 1274 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 24, 2003

In Lee the court affirmed summary judgment for the employer because the plaintiff failed to establish that “she was more qualified than Hines [the person promoted], let alone so clearly more qualified for the position than … (non-Hispanic male) as the fourth most qualified candidate; and Glendon Walker (non-Hispanic male) as the fifth most qualified candidate. 7 .

Klaskala v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

889 F. Supp. 480 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 12, 1995

Sovereign Immunity As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that it has jurisdiction over these claims because the government has waived its sovereign immunity with respect to them. … To have a protected property interest, a person must clearly have a legitimate entitlement to it. Roth, 408 U.S. at 577 , 92 S.Ct. at 2709 , 33 L.Ed.2d at 560-61 .

Joubert v. Barnhart

396 F. Supp. 2d 1320 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 8, 2005

as follows: (e) As used in this section, the term “Cuban and Haitian entrant” means- (1) any individual granted parole status as a Cuban/Haitian Entrant (Status Pending) or granted any other special status subsequently established … Specifically, 8 C.F.R. § 212.5 (h) and the POMS cited above, clearly provide that the REAA status will apply to “any national of Cuba or Haiti who was paroled into the United States on or after October 10, 1980.”

Suchite v. Kleppin

819 F. Supp. 2d 1284 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 5, 2011

They’re clearly on the lam.” (Kleppin Dep. 170.) He testified that he was concerned about his safety with them. (Kleppin Dep. 170.) … If the moving party bears the burden of proof at trial, the moving party must establish all essential elements of the claim or defense in order to obtain summary judgment. See United States v.

Prado v. L. Luria & Son, Inc.

975 F. Supp. 1349 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Apr 14, 1997

Having failed to identify any specific position for which she applied, for which she was qualified, and for which she was turned down because of her national origin, the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case … Casa Gallardo, Inc., 922 F.2d 1515, 1521 (11th Cir.1991)(to establish a prima facie case plaintiff must *1357 prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she applied for an available position for which she was qualified

Acevedo v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.

317 F. Supp. 3d 1188 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 12, 2017

Here, Defendant has not established a sufficient foundation to allow evidence on the absence of similar incidents. … Gelblum is not qualified to offer psychiatric or psychological opinions and offers improper testimony and (2) that the report lacks methodology, is not reliable, and does not clearly address issues before the Court, and (

Volpe v. Heckler

610 F. Supp. 144 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 28, 1985

The Appeals Council was of the opinion that Claimant’s subjective complaints of pain were not sufficient to establish that there was a physical or mental impairment. … The Council here disregarded precedent, and the Government’s attempt to uphold this denial on review is clearly not justified.

Bruce's Juices, Inc. v. American Can Co.

87 F. Supp. 985 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 24, 1949

The end result of defendant’s discount system, as it was-operated, thus appears from the record: 98% of defendant’s customers failed to-qualify for any discount; of the 2% which, received a discount, only three qualified … The price differential was clearly 'available to the large competitor for innumerable competitive, and therefore harmful, purposes and of necessity the small canner, who has paid more, has thereby sustained direct injury.