Case law

University Books & Videos, Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County

78 F. Supp. 2d 1327 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 27, 1999

Specifically, Plaintiffs aver that the Ordinance’s definitions of “adult bookstore” and “adult video store” are broad enough to include businesses that offer a very limited amount of material that may qualify as harmful to … When read as a whole, the terms of Ordinance 96-13 clearly applies only to adult bookstores and adult video stores, meaning establishments such as Plaintiffs that are in the business of selling sexually explicit material.

Bentley v. Bank of America, N.A.

773 F. Supp. 2d 1367 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 23, 2011

Instead, the Complaint clearly establishes that neither Defendants are “debt collectors” as contemplated by the statute which explicitly excludes mortgage servicing companies where the debt was not in default at the time … As explained above, Plaintiff clearly had an established business relationship with Defendants' — borrower and loan servicers — -at the time the calls were commenced in 2010.

Meyer v. Health Management Associates, Inc.

841 F. Supp. 2d 1262 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 20, 2012

HMA has not, however, carried its burden to establish that this disputed issue is "substantial." … For all of these reasons, then, the disputed issues of federal law in this case clearly are not “substantial” within the meaning of Grable & Sons. The authorities cited by HMA do not suggest otherwise.

Talmo v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.

782 F. Supp. 1538 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Dec 23, 1991

In addition to these statutory protections, FDIC is protected against defenses based on subsequent oral agreements by law established by D’Oench, Duhme & Co. v. … The D’Oench doctrine was established by D’Oench, Duhme & Co. v. FDIC, 315 U.S. 447 , 62 S.Ct. 676 , 86 L.Ed. 956 (1942). 3 .

Escobar v. Crosby

363 F. Supp. 2d 1361 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 22, 2005

Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages fails because the County as a public entity is immune from liability for punitive damages; 4. … precondition to suit "the courts cannot simply waive those requirements where they determine that they are futile or inadequate,” since "such an interpretation would impose an enormous loophole in the PLRA which Congress clearly

Williams v. Florida

109 F. Supp. 2d 1372 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 23, 2000

established the proof required.” … Because the disparity would be less than 10 percentage points even if no blacks qualified for jury duty, Mr. Williams cannot establish his case under the Eleventh Circuit’s absolute disparity test.

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah

723 F. Supp. 1467 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 5, 1989

The goal was to establish a church, a school, a cultural center and a museum, and to bring Santería into the open as an established and accepted religion. … First, the ordinances clearly are directed at conduct and not belief. The conduct sought to be prescribed is the performance of animal sacrifice.

Baker v. McDonald's Corp.

686 F. Supp. 1474 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Dec 4, 1987

The affidavits of those employees, attached to the motion for summary judgment, describe attempts by the plaintiff to establish an intimate relationship with each woman. … To satisfy this element, the plaintiff must show a deprivation of equal protection, privileges or immunities secured by a specific statute or constitutional provision.

Hartsfield v. Miami-Dade County

90 F. Supp. 2d 1363 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Apr 18, 2000

This type of complaint does not establish an ADA claim. … The facts set forth in the preceding portion of this opinion (see text supra at pp. 6-8) clearly demonstrate that (a) the Defendant did not delay in providing necessary training, and (b) *1376 Plaintiff failed to establish

Stephen v. PGA Sheraton Resort

669 F. Supp. 1573 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 11, 1987

To establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment the plaintiff must show: (1) that he is a member of a protected group; (2) that he was qualified for the position held; (3) that he was discharged; and (4) that he was … Acceptance of the defendant’s contention that the plaintiff failed to show that he was qualified for his position with the defendant does not, however, destroy the plaintiff’s effort to establish a prima facie case under

Polo

District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 6, 2026

Truncale, 50 So.3d 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (quashing trial court order denying clerk of courts motion to dismiss and stating “[a]ccordingly, if a judicial or quasi-judicial officer’s actions qualify for judicial immunity … Even assuming arguendo Plaintiff did establish retaliation, he does not explain what constitutional right has been infringed by such retaliation.

House v. Mayo

85 F. Supp. 365 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 2, 1949

The evidence in this case clearly establishes the allegations of the petition that the information filed against House and others in case No. 233 was filed upon evidence secured as the result of the issuance and service of … United States, supra, the returning of an information in a State court upon such evidence would be equally immune from attack.

Lex Tex Ltd. v. Aileen, Inc.

326 F. Supp. 485 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 10, 1971

Aileen has not qualified to do business in the state, and has not appointed an agent for service of process. … “But here, because of the absence of its own office, employees and products in the district, (the Defendant) clearly lacks a regular and established place of business.”

Levine v. BellSouth Corp.

302 F. Supp. 2d 1358 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 27, 2004

Based on this language, the court concluded that “plain re-pugnancy” clearly could not be found between the 1996 Act and antitrust laws. Id. … As noted by the Court, “[T]his bars a finding of implied immunity.” Id.

Charles v. Miami-Dade Police Department

District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 28, 2019

That is, law enforcement officials are accorded only qualified immunity, and not absolute immunity, when a § 1983 plaintiff’s allegation is that, for example, apart from any direct grand-jury testimony, the officer … These allegations are simply not enough to establish an unconstitutional municipal policy.

Republic of Haiti v. Crown Charters, Inc.

667 F. Supp. 839 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 13, 1987

Crown’s general assertions that Stroock lawyers might have access to helpful information is simply not enough to overcome the qualified immunity offered by Rule 26(b)(3). … Copies of the documents establishing these transfers are annexed hereto as Exhibits E, F and G, respectively.

Taylor, Alan v. Dade Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 29, 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. … Plaintiff must clearly write the name of each Defendant who 1s a party to this action and specify which Defendant is responsible for each act or omission that forms the basis of his claims.

Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co.

69 F. Supp. 599 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 23, 1947

In most instances these employees failed to qualify for the reason that the non-exempt work they performed exceeded the 20% tolerance allowed by the regulation. … It is clearly so stated in Press *607 Release G-201. The Court, therefore, has no authority in the matter other than to hold that this employee is subject to the Act.

Terry v. Carnival Corp.

275 F. Supp. 3d 1323 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 10, 2017

The Plaintiff asserts that the Complaint clearly ■ alleges joint control and right of control, and the allegations exceed those required to sufficiently allege joint control. … Id. at 213 (affirming, the finding of joint venture where the facts established some factors clearly, but others “only vaguely, if at all.”)

Guillaume v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs

District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 18, 2020

or qualified immunity, see id. at 5–12; and that the Complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief, see id. at 17–20. … Third, AFILY8 cannot maintain a lawsuit against the United States, its agencies, or its officers unless it establishes a clear statutory waiver of sovereign immunity.