BIRDSALL SHIPPING, S.A., APPELLANT,
v.
JULIO CESAR GALLARDO, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the movant failed to carry its burden to establish entitlement to a change of venue.
[1] A foreign corporation, as a movant for a change of venue, bears the burden of proving its entitlement to the requested venue.
[2] A party seeking a change of venue based on the residency of co-defendants must provide proof of the residency of all co-defendants.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBirdsall Shipping, a co-defendant, sought a change of venue to Palm Beach County based on its corporate office location and the presumed residency of …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Change Of Venue cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
Birdsall Shipping, S.A. (Birdsall) challenges the denial of its motion for a change of venue to Palm Beach County. We affirm on the basis that, as movant, it failed to carry its burden before the trial court.
Birdsall was joined as a co-defendant with Tropical Shipping and Construction Company Ltd. (Tropical). The affidavit of Birdsall’s vice president supported its contention that, as a foreign corporation, it had a right to be sued in Palm Beach County because that was the place where it maintained its business office. § 47.051, Fla. Stat. (1979).1 On the assumption that its co-defendant, Tropical, resided in Palm Beach County, Birdsall correctly contends that both corporate entities were only amenable to suit in Palm Beach County, § 47.-021, Fla.Stat. (1979);2 Walt Disney World Co. v. Leff, 323 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Commercial Carrier Corporation v. Mercer, 226 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969).
The flaw in Birdsall’s argument is that there was no pleading or proof before the trial court to show the residency of its co-defendant, Tropical. The burden was upon Birdsall, as the movant, to establish its entitlement to a change of venue. Silver Star Citizens’ Committee v. City Council of Orlando, 194 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967); Greene v. Hoiriis, 103 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958).
Affirmed.
. 47.051 Actions against corporations.-Actions against domestic corporations shall be brought only in the county where such corporation has, or usually keeps, an office for transaction of its customary business, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located. Actions against foreign corporations doing business in this state shall be brought in a county where such corporation bas an agent or other representative, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located.
. 47.021 Actions against defendants residing in different counties.-Actions against two or more defendants residing in different counties may be brought in any county in which any defendant resides.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Piper Aircraft Corp. v. Anneliese Schwendemann, 564 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…has further noted that the burden of demonstrating any impropriety in a venue selection is placed upon the party challenging venue. See Cassidy v. Ice Queen International, Inc., 390 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Birdsall Shipping, S.A. v. Gallardo, 390 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The pertinent venue statute, Section 47.051, Florida Statutes (1989) (emphasis added), provides that: Actions against foreign corporations doing business in this state shall be brought in a county where such corporation has an…
-
Cassidy v. ICE Queen Int'l, Inc., 390 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…d in Dade County under Section 47.051, Florida Statutes (1979). See, Mann v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 300 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1974). At the least, Ice Queen did not carry its burden to plead and prove otherwise. Birdsall Shipping, S.A. v. Gallardo, 390 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Sheffield Steel Products, Inc. v. Powell Brothers, Inc., 385 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The order below is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to deny the motion to dismiss and for further proceedings consistent…
-
Hancock v. Crippen, 457 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…atutory requirement of the existence in Dade County of “an office for the transaction of its customary business.” [e.s.] See Tribune Co. v. Approved Personnel, Inc., 115 So. 2d 170 (Fla.lst DCA 1959). Hence, as in Birdsall Shipping, S.A v. Gallardo, 390 So. 2d 437 (Fla.3d DCA 1980), the appellant failed to carry his burden of establishing that venue was improper under Section 47.021, Florida Statutes (1983): Actions against defendants residing in different counties. — Actions against two or more defendants…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- NIX v. Lake W. Koontz, 103 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Walt Disney World Co. & Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Leff, 323 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Levada Mercer, 226 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Silver Star Citizens' Comm. v. City Council OF Orlando, 194 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)