§Why CasetextPricing

Rumbough v. Capital One Bank et al

REPLY to response to motion re MOTION to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and Supporting Memorandum of Law

9 Cited authorities

  1. Burger King Corporation v. Weaver

    169 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 1999)   Cited 701 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that amendment to add bad faith refusal to renew claim was futile when court had already decided on summary judgment that refusal to renew was justified

  2. Vanderberg v. Donaldson

    259 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2001)   Cited 595 times
    Holding that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend where the plaintiff did not move for leave to amend until after the dismissal order and the "[p]laintiff failed to allege new facts from which the district court could have concluded that [p]laintiff may have been able to state a claim successfully"

  3. Long ex rel. Purvis v. Satz

    181 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 1999)   Cited 328 times
    Holding that a plaintiff’s failure to request leave to amend anywhere outside of her opposition to the motion to dismiss "preclude[d] the plaintiff’s argument on appeal that the district court abused its discretion by denying her leave to amend her complaint"

  4. Thomas v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Ass'n

    594 F.3d 814 (11th Cir. 2010)   Cited 28 times
    Noting that even where "[n]either party challenges our jurisdiction to entertain" an appeal, "we are obligated to address jurisdictional questions"

  5. Cordell v. Pacific

    335 F. App'x 956 (11th Cir. 2009)   Cited 7 times
    Explaining that pro se litigant's "misinterpretation of the rules with respect to the time to appeal" did not constitute excusable neglect

  6. Fleur v. Brights

    Case No. 8:03-cv-824-T-30TGW (M.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2006)

    Case No. 8:03-cv-824-T-30TGW. January 26, 2006 ORDER JAMES MOODY JR., District Judge Plaintiff, an inmate in a Florida penal institution, filed a civil rights complaint seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The incident about which Plaintiff complains occurred at the Zephyrhills Correctional Institution on or about March 6, 2003. Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter on May 2, 2003, and ordered to pay an initial filing fee of $9.50 (Dkt. 3). Because payment

  7. Miller v. Ford Motor Company

    Case No. 2:01-cv-545-FtM-29DNF (M.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2004)

    Case No. 2:01-cv-545-FtM-29DNF. December 17, 2004 ORDER JOHN STEELE, District Judge This matter comes before the Court on defendant Cooper Tire Rubber Company's Motion to Tax Costs and Bill of Costs (Doc. #334), filed on September 7, 2004, which seeks $32,869.04 in costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Plaintiff filed a Response and Objection (Doc. #35) on September 10, 2004; defendant filed a Reply (Doc. #341), and plaintiff filed a Surreply (Doc. #339). On August 19, 2004, a Judgment in a Civil Case (Doc

  8. Rule 6 - Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 6   Cited 50,129 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."

  9. Rule 7 - Pleadings Allowed; Form of Motions and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 7   Cited 7,742 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Defining "pleadings" for purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure