Clark A. Huls v. Lusan C. Llabona (2011)
green
· 66 citation events
across 9 courts.
Showing the 32 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2015 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
201520202026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Griffin v. Motorsport Games Inc. (2024)
See Huls v. Llabona, 437 F. App’x 830, 832 (11th Cir. 2011) (“Because [the plaintiff] raised this argument for the first time in his response to [the defendant’s] motion to dismiss, instead of seeking leave to file an amended complaint, pursuant to Fed.
“Because [the plaintiff] raised this argument for the first time in his response to [the defendant’s] motion to dismiss, instead of seeking leave to file an amended complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), it was not properly raised below.”
Huls v. Llabana, 437 F. App’x 830, 832 (11th Cir. 2011); Cobb v. Ga. Power Co., 757 F.2d 1248, 1251 (11th Cir. 1985) (“[O]ne who has obtained a state court order or judgment is not engaged in state action merely because [he] used the state court legal process.”).
See Huls v. Llabona, 437 F. App'x 830, 832 (11th Cir. 2011) (“Because [plaintiff] raised this argument for the first time in his response to [defendant’s] motion to dismiss, instead of seeking leave to file an amended complaint, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), it was not properly raised below.”); Howard v. Harris, No. 4:22CV97-AW-MAF, 2022 WL 22877473 , at *1 (N.D.
“Because [plaintiff] raised this argument for the first time in his response to [defendant’s] motion to dismiss, instead of seeking leave to file an amended complaint, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), it was not properly raised below.”
green
Allston v. Florida Department of Revenue (2024)
See Huls v. Llabona, 437 F. App’x 830 , 832 n.5 (11th Cir. 2011) (“Because Huls raises this argument for the first time in his response to Llabona’s motion to dismiss, instead of seeking leave to file an amended complaint. . ., it was not properly raised below.”). claims in state court.6 Accordingly, it seems the Younger absention doctrine applies and Plaintiff’s requests for injunctive and declaratory relief are subject to dismissal.7 See Perales v. Mejia, (M.D.
“Because Huls raises this argument for the first time in his response to Llabona’s motion to dismiss, instead of seeking leave to file an amended complaint. . ., it was not properly raised below.”
green
Brown v. Girgenti (2024)
See Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981); Huls v. Llabona, 437 F. App’x 830, 832 (11th Cir. 2011) (holding that a private attorney representing a client in a private civil matter is not a state actor for purposes of § 1983); Hale v. King, No. 5:11-cv-610-Oc-29TBS, 2012 WL 84820 , at *2 n.2 (M.D.
holding that a private attorney representing a client in a private civil matter is not a state actor for purposes of § 1983
green
BRISTOL v. BUTTS COUNTY GA (2024)
Ga. June 30, 2023); see e.g., Huls v. Llabona, 437 F. App’x 830 , 832 n.5 (11th Cir. 2011) (“Because Huls raised this argument for the first time in his response to Llabona’s motion to dismiss, instead of seeking leave to file an amended complaint, pursuant to [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 15(a), it was not properly raised below.”).
“Because Huls raised this argument for the first time in his response to Llabona’s motion to dismiss, instead of seeking leave to file an amended complaint, pursuant to [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 15(a), it was not properly raised below.”
green
DONALDSON v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (2023)
Huls v. Llabona, 437 F. App’x 830, 832 (11th Cir. 2011) (“Because Huls raised this argument for the first time in his response to Llabona’s motion to dismiss, instead of seeking leave to file an amended complaint, pursuant to Fed.
“Because Huls raised this argument for the first time in his response to Llabona’s motion to dismiss, instead of seeking leave to file an amended complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), it was not properly raised[.]”
green
Hawthorne v. Secretary of the Army (2022)
See, e.g., Huls v. Llabona, 437 Fed.
“Because Huls raised this argument for the first time in his response to Llabona’s motion to dismiss, instead of seeking to file an amended complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), it was not properly raised”
green
Steffens v. Nocco (2021)
The Court must not consider a claim raised for the first time in a response to a motion for judgment on the pleadings. , 437 F. App’x 830 , 832 n.5 (11th Cir. 2011) (“Because Huls raises this argument for the first time in his response to Llabona’s motion to dismiss, instead of seeking leave to file an amended complaint . . . , it was not properly raised below.”).Without an alleged violation of a constitutional right, Steffens has not stated a plausible claim for relief in C…
“Because Huls raises this argument for the first time in his response to Llabona’s motion to dismiss, instead of seeking leave to file an amended complaint . . . , it was not properly raised below.”
green
Zinman v. L.A. Fitness International LLC (2021)
Fla. 2015) (“a complaint may not be amended by briefs in opposition to a motion to dismiss.” (citing Huls v. Llabona, 437 F. App’x 830, 832 (11th Cir. 2011))); see also Erb v. Advantage Sales & Mktg.
green
EDEBIRI v. NORTH HIGHLAND COMPANY (2020)
Ga. 2015) (citing Huls v. Llabona, 437 F. App’x 830 , 832 n.5 (11th Cir. 2011) (“A complaint may 26 ECF 1-1, at 5 (“I acknowledge and agree that . . . it is possible that no definitive agreement(s) may be reached and that as such no investment is guaranteed.”). 27 ECF 16, at 7. not be amended by briefs in opposition to a motion to dismiss.”)).
“A complaint may 26 ECF 1-1, at 5 (“I acknowledge and agree that . . . it is possible that no definitive agreement(s) may be reached and that as such no investment is guaranteed.”). 27 ECF 16, at 7. not be amended by briefs in opposition to a motion to dismiss.”
green
Wolf v. Alutiiq Education & Training, LLC (CONSENT) (2020)
“A party cannot amend a complaint by attaching documents to a response to a motion to dismiss, or by asserting new facts or theories in the response.” Id.; see also Huls v. Llabona, 437 F. App’x 830, 832 (11th Cir. 2011) (“Because 6 [the plaintiff] raised this argument for the first time in his response to [the defendant’s] motion to dismiss, instead of seeking leave to file an amended complaint, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), it was not properly raised below”); Brown v. J.…
“Because 6 [the plaintiff] raised this argument for the first time in his response to [the defendant’s] motion to dismiss, instead of seeking leave to file an amended complaint, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), it was not properly raised below”
green
Flood v. City of Jacksonville (2017)
Huls v. Llabona, 437 Fed.Appx. 830, 832 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Gilmour v. Gates, McDonald & Co., 382 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir.2004)).
citing Gilmour v. Gates, McDonald & Co., 382 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir.2004)
green
Griggs v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co. (2017)
See Huls v. Llabona, 437 Fed.Appx. 830 , 832 n.5 (11th Cir. Aug. 15, 2011) (“Because Huls raised this argument for the first time in his response to Llabo-na’s motion to dismiss, instead of seeking leave to file an amended complaint, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), it was not properly raised below.”).
“Because Huls raised this argument for the first time in his response to Llabo-na’s motion to dismiss, instead of seeking leave to file an amended complaint, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), it was not properly raised below.”
green
K&W Property Group, LLC v. City of Temple Terrace (2024)
See Huls v. Liabona, 437 Fed.
per curiam
green
Michael Colon v. Deputy Perdomo, Corporal Latiff, Deputy R. Fredrickson, and Deputy Hilldgers (2025)
See Huls v. Llabona, 437 F. App’x 830 , 832 n.5 (11th Cir. 2011).
green
BROGAN v. FIN AND FEATHERS (2025)
See Huls v. Llabona, 437 F. App’x 830 , 852 n.5 (11th Cir. 2011).
green
Collings v. Marshall County, Alabama (2024)
See Huls v. Llabona, 437 F. App’x 830 , 832 n.5 (11th Cir. 2011).
green
Thomas Sr. v. Hyler (2024)
See Huls v. Llabona, 437 F. App’x 830 , 832 n.5 (11th Cir. 2011).
green
Baloa Diaz v. Edi Korta, LLC (2024)
Tex. 2013); see also Huls v. Llabana, 437 F. App’x 830 , 831 n.5 (11th Cir. 2011) (explaining that a “plaintiff may not amend his complaint through argument in a brief opposing summary judgment” (alteration adopted; quoting Gilmour v. Gates, McDonald & Co., 382 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2004)).
explaining that a “plaintiff may not amend his complaint through argument in a brief opposing summary judgment” (alteration adopted; quoting Gilmour v. Gates, McDonald & Co., 382 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2004)
green
Payne v. Barwick (2024)
Tex. 2013); see also Huls v. Llabana, 437 F. App’x 830 , 831 n.5 (11th Cir. 2011) (explaining that a “[p]laintiff may not amend his complaint through argument in a brief opposing summary judgment.”).
explaining that a “[p]laintiff may not amend his complaint through argument in a brief opposing summary judgment.”
green
Doe 1 v. MG Freesites LTD (2023)
See Huls v. Llabona, 437 F. App’x 830 , 832 n.5 (11th Cir. 2011) (finding that a claim is not properly raised where asserted for the first time in response to a motion to dismiss).
finding that a claim is not properly raised where asserted for the first time in response to a motion to dismiss
green
Mitchum v. Blankenship (MAG+) (2023)
See, e.g., Huls v. Llabona, 437 F. App’x 830 , 832 n. 5 (11th Cir. 2011) (holding that an argument raised for the first time in response to defendant’s motion to dismiss, instead of in an amended complaint, was not properly raised before the district court and would not be considered on appeal).
holding that an argument raised for the first time in response to defendant’s motion to dismiss, instead of in an amended complaint, was not properly raised before the district court and would not be considered on appeal
green
Mitchell v. Murray (2023)
Ga. 2015); see also Huls v. Llabona, 437 F. App’x 830 , 832 n.5 (11th Cir. 2011) (holding that an argument raised for the first time in response to defendant’s motion to dismiss, instead of in an amended complaint, was not properly raised before the district court and would not be considered on appeal).
holding that an argument raised for the first time in response to defendant’s motion to dismiss, instead of in an amended complaint, was not properly raised before the district court and would not be considered on appeal
green
Craddock v. Becerra (2023)
See Huls v. Llabona, 437 F. App’x 830 , 832 n.5 (11th Cir. 2011) (holding that a plaintiff cannot amend a complaint through argument in response to a motion to dismiss).
holding that a plaintiff cannot amend a complaint through argument in response to a motion to dismiss
green
Johnson v. Wormuth (2023)
Ga. 2015); see also Huls v. Llabona, 437 F. App’x 830 , 832 n.5 (11th Cir. 2011) (holding that an argument raised for the first time in response to defendant’s motion to dismiss, instead of in an amended complaint, was not properly raised before the district court and would not be considered on appeal).
holding that an argument raised for the first time in response to defendant’s motion to dismiss, instead of in an amended complaint, was not properly raised before the district court and would not be considered on appeal
green
Pardy & Rodriguez, PA v. Allstate Insurance Company (2021)
See Huls v. Liabona, 437 F. App’x 830 , 832 n.4 (11th Cir. 2011) (finding argument not properly raised where plaintiff asserted it for the first time in response to defendant’s motion to dismiss, instead of seeking leave to file an amended complaint); cf. Davis v. Cothern, 482 F. App’x 495, 497 (11th Cir. 2012) (“A plaintiff may not amend her complaint through argument in a brief opposing summary judgment.”) Hernandez argues that the four purported claims it did present “are…
finding argument not properly raised where plaintiff asserted it for the first time in response to defendant’s motion to dismiss, instead of seeking leave to file an amended complaint
green
Gilmore v. Georgia Department of Corrections (2020)
See, e.g., Huls v. Llabona, 437 F. App’x 830 , 832 n.5 (11th Cir. 2011) (holding that an argument raised for the first time in response to a defendant’s motion to dismiss was not properly raised before the district court and would not be considered on appeal).
holding that an argument raised for the first time in response to a defendant’s motion to dismiss was not properly raised before the district court and would not be considered on appeal
green
Peers v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (2020)
See Huls v. Liabona, 437 F. App’x 830 , 832 n.4 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (finding that an argument was not properly raised when plaintiff asserted it for the first time in response to defendant's motion to dismiss). 2 Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and should be liberally construed.
per curiam
green
KELLY v. WELLS FARGO BANK (2019)
Ga. 2015)); see also Huls v. Llabona, 437 F. App’x 830 , 832 n.5 (11th Cir.2011) (holding that an argument raised for the first time in response to defendant’s motion to dismiss, instead of in an amended complaint, was not properly raised before the district court).
Ga. 2015); see also, Huls v. Llabona, 437 Fed.Appx. 830 , 832 n. 5 (11th Cir. 2011) (holding that an argument raised for the first time in response to defendant’s motion to dismiss, instead of in an amended complaint, was not properly raised before the district court and would not be considered on appeal); McKally v. Perez, 87 F.Supp.3d 1310, 1317-18 (S.D.
holding that an argument raised for the first time in response to defendant’s motion to dismiss, instead of in an amended complaint, was not properly raised before the district court and would not be considered on appeal
green
McKally v. Perez (2015)
See Huls v. Llabona, 437 Fed.Appx. 830 , 832 n. 5 (11th Cir.2011) (holding that an argument raised for the first time in response to defendant’s motion to dismiss, instead of in an amended complaint, was not properly raised before the district court and would not be considered on appeal); Fleming v. Dowdell, 434 F.Supp.2d 1138 , 1148 n. 9 (M.D.Ala.2005) (finding dismissal of the Fourth Amendment claim was proper because “[a] complaint may not be amended by briefs in oppositi…