§Why CasetextPricing

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al v. Kugler, MD et al

MOTION to Dismiss [19] Amended Complaint, Notice of Joinder in Co-Defendants Motions to Dismiss

41 Cited authorities

  1. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell

    538 U.S. 408 (2003)   Cited 2,785 times   56 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an award of $145 million in punitive damages on a $1 million compensatory verdict violated due process

  2. Rotella v. Wood

    528 U.S. 549 (2000)   Cited 950 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding RICO claims accrue upon a plaintiff's discovery of their injury, not discovery of Defendants' actions

  3. Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff Assocs

    483 U.S. 143 (1987)   Cited 1,207 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that civil RICO actions are subject to a four-year statute of limitations

  4. Jackson v. Bellsouth Telecomms.

    372 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2004)   Cited 1,900 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the same analysis applies to federal and Florida RICO claims

  5. Klehr v. A. O. Smith Corp.

    521 U.S. 179 (1997)   Cited 557 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "reasonable diligence" was required to invoke the doctrine of fraudulent concealment in the context of civil RICO by analogy to antitrust cases

  6. Mills v. Polar Molecular Corp.

    12 F.3d 1170 (2d Cir. 1993)   Cited 1,573 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fraudulent intent could not be inferred from the defendant entering multiple contracts with a plaintiff and not performing on any of them since "[c]ontractual breach, in and of itself, does not bespeak fraud"

  7. Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc.

    437 F.3d 923 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 427 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because a district court's judgment is "final" for purpose of res judicata, a subsequent state court decision was not a bar to the appeal

  8. Salyton v. American Exp. Co.

    460 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2006)   Cited 382 times
    Holding that dismissal with leave to amend is a non-final order that is not appealable since the litigation may continue via an amendment to the complaint

  9. PNR, Inc. v. Beacon Property Management, Inc.

    842 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 2003)   Cited 253 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a deception occurs under FDUTPA if a consumer, acting reasonably under the circumstances, is misled

  10. City First Mortg. Corp. v. Barton

    988 So. 2d 82 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 125 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inability to close on a loan due to alleged deceptive acts or unfair practices of the defendant did not constitute actual damages under FDUTPA

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 366,273 times   968 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 166,300 times   198 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  13. Section 501.201 - Short title

    Fla. Stat. § 501.201   Cited 1,030 times   9 Legal Analyses

    This part shall be known and may be cited as the "Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act." Fla. Stat. § 501.201 s. 1, ch. 73-124.

  14. Rule 1.120 - PLEADING SPECIAL MATTERS

    Fl. R. Civ. P. 1.120   Cited 229 times

    (a) Capacity. It is not necessary to aver the capacity of a party to sue or be sued, the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, or the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party, except to the extent required to show the jurisdiction of the court. The initial pleading served on behalf of a minor party shall specifically aver the age of the minor party. When a party desires to raise an issue as to the legal existence of any party, the