United States v. Air Florida, Inc.

3 Citing cases

  1. Oceguera v. Alutiiq Security Technology, LLC

    CASE NO: 10-22220-CIV-KING (S.D. Fla. Oct. 1, 2010)   Cited 3 times
    Applying Florida law to find in a tortious interference with a business relationship case that the defendants "were not 'disinterested third part[ies]' to the relationship, and, as a matter of law, could not have interfered with it"

    In the light most favorable to Plaintiff, he has not alleged that he was qualified for the security officer job. A score "close to the minimum passing score" is not a passing score, and Plaintiff's conclusory statement that he was qualified does not save his claim. See United States v. Air Florida, Inc., 534 F.Supp. 17, 20 (S.D. Fla. 1982) ("On a motion to dismiss . . . the court need not accept conclusions of law or sweeping legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations."). 2.

  2. Gomer v. Phillip Morris, Inc.

    106 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (M.D. Ala. 2000)   Cited 5 times

    for the purposes of a motion to dismiss.Associated Builders, Inc. v. Alabama Power Co., 505 F.2d 97, 100 (5th Cir. 1974)accord South Fla. Water Management Dist. v. Montalvo, 84 F.3d 402, 409 n. 10 (11th Cir. 1996); United States v. Air Florida Inc., 534 F. Supp. 17, 20 (M.D. Fla. 1982) ("on a motion to dismiss . . . the court need not accept conclusions of law or sweeping legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations."); see also Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure ยง 1357 (1990) (on a motion to dismiss courts do not accept as true "legal conclusions, unsupported conclusions, unwarranted inferences . . . [or] footless conclusions of law." (footnotes and internal quotations omitted)).

  3. Spanish Intern. Comm. v. Leibowitz

    608 F. Supp. 178 (S.D. Fla. 1985)   Cited 2 times

    Allegations of conduct violative of the antitrust laws without a statement of the facts constituting such conduct is a mere allegation of a legal conclusion and is therefore insufficient to state a claim under the antitrust laws. See United States v. Air Florida, Inc., 534 F. Supp. 17, 20 (S.D.Fla. 1982) ("the Court need not accept conclusions of law or sweeping legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations"). The inadequacy of conclusory pleading of antitrust claims is even more striking, however, when the conclusory pleading involves, as here, an attempt to invoke the "sham exception" to Noerr-Pennington antitrust immunity.