Crosby v. Paulk

2 Citing briefs

  1. Bateman v. Verizon Wireless Personal Communications LP et al

    MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof

    Filed November 14, 2016

    Stated otherwise: “A district court has discretion to dismiss state-law claims when ‘all claims over which it has original jurisdiction’ have been dismissed.” Crosby v. Paulk, 187 F.3d 1339, 1352 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). 2 Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege any basis for conferring original federal court jurisdiction over its FCCPA claim against Verizon Wireless under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

  2. Behrens v. Regier, et al

    MOTION to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint

    Filed August 10, 2004

    Further, the precedents which show the official erred must be factually similar to plaintiff’s own situation; general rules or abstractions will not suffice. Crosby v. Paulk, 187 F.3d 1339, 1344 (11th Cir. 1999); Rodgers v. Horsley, 39 F.3d 308, 310 (11th Cir. 1994). In order to defeat the immunity, the conduct must have been “so obviously illegal that only an official who was incompetent or who knowingly was violating the law would have committed” the acts.