Legal Opinion
Tuckish v. Pompano Motor Co.
District Court, S.D. Florida
Decided September 23, 2004No. 03-61635-CIVPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss and Motion for a More Definite Statement
JORDAN, District Judge.
Pompano Motor Company’s motion to dismiss and motion for a more definite statement [D.E.5-1 and 5-2] are DENIED for the reasons set forth below.
I. Relevant Facts 1
Dennis Tuckish sues Pompano Motor Company, d.b.a. Eddie Accardi Jeep- Chrysler-Dodge-Subaru, for alleged violations of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, commonly known as the Odometer Act, 49 U.S.C. §§ 32701-32711 (Count I), and the regulations promulgated thereunder; the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act,…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- United States Ex Rel. Clausen v. Laboratory Corp. of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2002
- Herman Friedlander, Etc., Cross-Appellees v. Jerry C. Nims, Timex Corporation, Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1985
- Nadine Brooks v. Blue Cross And Blue Shield Of Florida, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1997
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Austin v. Stokes-Craven Holding Corp.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2010
- Anthony v. Yahoo! Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2006
- State of Fla., Office of Atty. v. Tenet HealthcareDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 2005
- Williams v. Delray Auto Mall, Inc.District Court, S.D. Florida · 2013
- Austin v. Stokes-Craven Holding Corp.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2010