Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Terrell v. DirecTV, LLC

CASE NO. 12-81244-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla. Feb. 5, 2013)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Terrell v. DirecTV, LLC

2 Citing cases

  1. Superior Edge, Inc. v. Monsanto Co.

    44 F. Supp. 3d 890 (D. Minn. 2014)   Cited 42 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a counterclaim which incorporated by reference the prior paragraphs within seven separate counts was nonetheless “more than sufficient to put [plaintiff] on notice” where each count “explicitly state[d] the basis for relief under each legal theory”

    The remedy of repleader based on violation of Rules 8 and 10 has generally been reserved for egregious cases where “a defendant does not know the basic facts that constitute the claim for relief against it.” Terrell v. DIRECTV, LLC, Civ. No. 12–81244, 2013 WL 451914, at *2 (S.D.Fla. Feb. 6, 2013) (requiring amendment of a complaint where, among other deficiencies, the paragraphs were not numbered consecutively, several complaints had been merged into one, the complaint was repetitive and rambling, “[s]everal counts appear [ed] to be cut-off mid-count,” and unnecessary statutes and regulations were attached as exhibits); Allen v. Cypress Village, Ltd., Civ. No. 10–994, 2011 WL 1667055, at *2 (M.D.Ala. May 3, 2011) (finding a complaint violated Rule 10(b) by incorporating every antecedent allegation by reference into each subsequent claim for relief where “[t]here are no counts, only a ‘Prayer for Relief

  2. Nature's Prods., Inc. v. Natrol, Inc.

    990 F. Supp. 2d 1307 (S.D. Fla. 2013)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that the jury must decide whether a seller's representation (i.e. , that certain healthcare products were gluten free) constituted an unfair or deceptive trade practice under the Florida statute because it presented "a question of fact for the jury to determine"

    Actual damages “are defined as the difference in the market value of the product or service in the condition in which it was delivered and its market value in the condition in which it should have been delivered according to the contract of the parties.” Terrell v. DIRECTV, LLC, No. 12–81244–CIV, 2013 WL 451914, at *3 (S.D.Fla. Feb. 6, 2013) (internal quotations omitted). “The term ‘actual damages' does not include special or consequential damages.”