Hawkins v. Eslinger

4 Citing cases

  1. Barteet v. Eismann

    CASE NO. 13-80434-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2014)

    The Court rejects Defendant's reliance on Hawkins v. Eslinger, No. 6:07-cv-1261-Orl-19GJK, 2008 WL 2074409 (M.D. Fla. May 15, 2008). In that case, the plaintiff "omit[ted] all factual details, alleging only that 'similarly situated complainants and victims of domestic violence in Seminole County' exists."

  2. Crisante v. Coats

    Case No. 8:11-CV-2007-T-17TBM (M.D. Fla. May. 2, 2012)   Cited 3 times
    In Crisante v. Coats, 2012 WL 1565424 (M.D. Fla. May 2, 2012; E. Kovachevich, J.), as here, customers of the plaintiffs' internet cafe could enter a sweepstakes for free by mail or in person, or by buying prepaid phone cards.

    "The rationale behind this requirement is to allow the court to determine whether the plaintiff's treatment was actually the result of discrimination, as opposed to a decision based on facts peculiar to the plaintiffs situation." Hawkins v. Eslinger, No. 6:07-cv-1261-Orl-19GJK, 2008 WL 2074409, at*1 (M.D. Fla. May 15, 2008) (Fawsett, C.J.).

  3. George's Place, LLC v. Smith

    Case No. 3:11-cv-1096-J-37JBT (M.D. Fla. Feb. 1, 2012)   Cited 3 times

    Further, Plaintiffs have a "heavy" burden to show that "similarly situated" establishments have been "treated more favorably." Hawkins v. Eslinger, No. 6:07-cv-1261-Orl-19GJK, 2008 WL 2074409, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 15, 2008); see Hicks v. Jackson Cnty. Comm'n, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1084, 1096 (N.D. Ala. 2005) ("The burden of identifying similarly situated individuals is a heavy one."); see also Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 10 (1992) ("The Equal Protection Clause does not forbid classifications. It simply keeps governmental decision makers from treating differently persons who are in all relevant respects alike.")

  4. Pete's Towing Co. v. City of Tampa, Florida

    CASE NO: 8:08-cv-209-T-23EAJ (M.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2008)   Cited 4 times
    Holding plaintiff sufficiently alleged a class of one equal protection claim despite the fact plaintiff was "unable to identify the reason for the difference in treatment"

    See also GJR Invs., Inc. v. County of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1367-68 (11th Cir. 1998) ("[T]he complaint does not present a single instance in which a similarly situated developer was granted a permit; it merely alleges that nameless, faceless 'other' permit applicants were given better treatment. Bare allegations that 'other' applicants, even 'all other' applicants, were treated differently do not state an equal protection claim. . . ."); Douglas Asphalt Co. v. Qore, Inc., 541 F.3d 1269, 1274 (11th Cir. 2008); Hawkins v. Eslinger, No. 6:07-cv-1261-Orl-19GJK, 2008 WL 2074409, *2 (M.D. Fla. May 15, 2008). But see Cohn v. New Paltz Cent. Sch. Dist., 171 Fed. Appx. 877, 879, 2006 WL 522102, 1 (2d Cir. 2006) ("[A]t the pleading stage, a complaint alleging a 'class of one' Equal Protection violation need not identify actual instances where others have been treated differently, and . . . it is sufficient to make the more general allegation that similarly-situated people have been treated differently. . . .").