Case law

Microsoft Corp. v. Big Boy Distribution LLC

589 F. Supp. 2d 1308 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Dec 3, 2008

qualified students and not to the general public. … Microsoft now seeks partial summary judgment establishing Big Boys’ liability on these claims.

Borges v. City of West Palm Beach

858 F. Supp. 174 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 19, 1993

As clearly enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 , 96 S.Ct. 1155 , 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976), publication which endangers a person’s reputation is not cognizable as a § 1983 claim. … It codifies the established doctrines of pendent and ancillary jurisdiction. 13 Wright, Miller & Cooper § 3567.3 (2d Ed.). 5 .

Hanley v. the Sports Authority

120 F. Supp. 2d 1353 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 18, 2000

Discipline Claims To establish a prima facie case in the area of disparate discipline, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that he belongs to a protected class; (2) that he is qualified for the job; and (3) that a similarly … Plaintiff claims that he was more qualified than Avalives and clearly he had more seniority.

Solano v. a Navas Party Production, Inc.

728 F. Supp. 2d 1334 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 26, 2010

The time cards include two time periods that are clearly labeled and indicate the hours Plaintiff worked: January 2006 to June 2006 and December 2007 to August 2008. … However, this establishes only 15 months of the 48 months Plaintiff was employed by Defendants. 8 .

Vallecillo v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc.

595 F. Supp. 2d 1374 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 30, 2009

Based on this, Judge Ungaro denied summary judgment on the issue of whether Defendant Wall to Wall did enough business to qualify under enterprise coverage. … Thus, the facts claimed in Defendant’s Affidavit stand as conclusively established. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e).

Gonzalez v. Batmasian

246 F. Supp. 3d 1339 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 29, 2017

To qualify for any of these exemptions, an employee must be compensated on a salary basis. 29 C.F.R. § 541.600 . … City of Newport, 997 F.2d 18 , 21 (4th Cir. 1993) ("Employers must prove by clear and convincing evidence that an employee qualifies for exemption,”), .

Prieto v. City of Miami Beach

190 F. Supp. 2d 1340 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 14, 2002

This meant that qualified claimants had the right to be offered the first available jobs, up to a total of 10 in each department, in accordance with their respective places on priority hire lists established under the consent … A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of discrimination by demonstrating: (1) that he or she is qualified; (2) that he or she suffered an adverse employment action; (3) that the employer treated similarly situated

Jackson, Tre v. Chacon

District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 1, 2025

Third, “a plaintiff must establish that an officer’s deliberate indifference caused his injury.” Donald v. Norris, 131 F.4th 1255, 1265 (11th Cir. 2025). … Factual detail in the pleadings is particularly necessary in cases involving qualified immunity, where the Court must determine whether a defendant’s actions violated a clearly established right.

Doe v. Board of County Commissioners

815 F. Supp. 1448 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 25, 1992

To obtain a judgment on the pleadings, the moving party must clearly establish that no material issue of fact remains unresolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Greenberg v. … Absent Doe’s special circumstances, Kass’ alleged harassment and pestering of Doe would not qualify as extreme and outrageous conduct in a work environment. 3 However, given Doe’s allegation of a mental handicap, the Court

Budget Rent a Car Systems, Inc. v. Hirsch

810 F. Supp. 1253 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 23, 1992

To obtain a judgment on the pleadings, the moving party must clearly establish that no material issue of fact remains unresolved, and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Greenberg v. … Without a public offering, a transaction cannot qualify as an exception to the initial offering rule.

Elmore v. Internal Revenue Service

District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 3, 2025

An “affidavit addressing the statutory language should be accepted by the court, absent a serious misrepresentation, and need not show that the litigant is absolutely destitute to qualify for indigent status under § 1915 … “[T]he plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction, and, thus, must prove an explicit waiver of immunity.” Ishler v. Internal Revenue, 237 F.

Banuchi v. City of Homestead

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

“Qualified immunity offers a 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 … violated a constitutional right”; and, if so (2) “whether the right was clearly established” at the time of the violation.

Gentry v. Harborage Cottages-Stuart, LLLP

602 F. Supp. 2d 1239 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 13, 2009

It is clearly established that limitations on an obligation to complete construction may include circumstances that would support a defense of impossibility under Florida contract law. … Admittedly, the threshold for establishing a legitimate business purpose sufficient to qualify for an exemption may be low, but it requires some factual evidence demonstrating that the method of disposition has some bona

Bonnie L. Ex Rel. Hadsock v. Bush

180 F. Supp. 2d 1321 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Dec 4, 2001

Holding otherwise would be antipathetic to established principles of comity. O’Shea, 414 U.S. at 501 , 94 S.Ct. at 679. … The intentional discrimination claims clearly survive.

Owens v. City of Fort Lauderdale

174 F. Supp. 2d 1298 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 20, 2001

By prior order, I granted the officers’ motion for summary judgement on qualified immunity grounds [D.E. 350] (May 8, 2001). … immunity).

Masvidal v. United States Department of Justice

716 F. Supp. 2d 1207 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Apr 2, 2010

Int'l Harvester Co., 817 F.2d 1214, 1220 (5th Cir.1987) (holding the false light claim based upon communications made in a judicial proceeding were absolutely privileged and immune from an action). … However, in reaching this conclusion, the Sigma court noted that the plaintiff failed to allege “that he has suffered any loss of employment, any diminution of salary, or anything else that would in our view qualify as ‘some

Selim v. Pan American Airways Corp.

254 F. Supp. 2d 1316 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 25, 2003

However, the “doctrine of ‘complete preemption’ or ‘super preemption’ ... qualifies the general well-pleaded complaint rule. … However, the “doctrine of ‘complete preemption’ or ‘super preemption’ ... qualifies the general well-pleaded complaint rule.

Jaisinghani v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.

973 F. Supp. 1450 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 22, 1997

In general, the law favors one’s established domicile over a putative new domicile unless ope is clearly shown to have changed domicile, and one’s domicile is presumed to be the same as one’s residence. 13B Wright, Miller … Thus, Plaintiff has never established a domicile in Florida, despite the move there in the mid 1980s. He was clearly domiciled in California since the 1960s.

Gerdert v. Certified Poultry & Egg Co.

38 F. Supp. 964 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Apr 29, 1941

Cureton, 262 U.S. 506, 508, 509 , 43 S.Ct. 643, 644 , 67 L.Ed. 1095 , as affording no immunity from state taxation. … 'It seems clear that the exemption in Section 213(a) (2) of an employee engaged in any retail or service establishment, “the greater part of whose selling or servicing is in intrastate commerce”, clearly showed the intent

Rosenfeld v. Lu

766 F. Supp. 1131 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 6, 1991

Const, art. 1, § 8, cl. 3, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause, U.S. Const, art. IV, § 2, of the United States Constitution. … In Old Coach, 881 F.2d 1227 , the State of New Jersey established a discriminatory regulatory scheme, whereby sellers of out-of-state land were subjected to requirements that were not imposed on sellers of New Jersey land