BARRY WAITE AND FOX & CO., APPELLANTS,
v.
SUMMIT LEASING & CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, A CORPORATION, AND WILBERT HAROLD MCCAULEY, APPELLEES
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 trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens because the defendant partnership should be considered a resident of Florida.
Appellants, a multistate accounting firm and partners, moved to dismiss a case based on forum non conveniens. The plaintiff was a Florida resident, bu…
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 Forum Non Conveniens cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
The defendants appeal a nonfinal order denying their motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens. We affirm.
The appellants are a multistate accounting firm and various partners. The firm’s headquarters are in Denver, Colorado, yet it has an office in Broward County, Florida, and one of the firm’s partners lives there. The only issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens.
A court may only consider application of the doctrine of forum non conven-iens when both parties to the action are nonresidents of the state of Florida and the cause of action sued upon arose outside of Florida. Houston v. Caldwell, 359 So. 2d 858 (Fla.1978). In this case, plaintiff was not a resident of Florida. However, the defendant partnership has a Florida office and a partner lives in the state. Therefore, the firm should be considered a resident of Florida, and the trial court did not err in denying defendants’ motion. We decline to follow the appellants’ urging that we depart from Houston v. Caldwell, supra.
AFFIRMED.
HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Aircraft Serv., Inc. v. NEW York Airlines, Inc., 489 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…upon forum non conveniens, i.e., because another state may be a more appropriate forum. Also, an out-of-state partnership with an office in Florida was not precluded from being sued in Florida. Waite v. Summit Leasing & Capital International Corp., 441 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Similarly, we hold that foreign corporations licensed to do business in Florida, with a place of business in Florida cannot be prevented from pursuing a cause of action in Florida courts based upon the doctrine of forum non conv…
-
The Cont'l Ins. Co. v. Kinney Sys., Inc., 641 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…a, with a place of business in Florida cannot be prevented from pursuing a cause of action in Florida courts based upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens.” 489 So. 2d at 39 (emphasis added). See also Waite v. Summit Leasing & Capital Int’l Corp., 441 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (considering partnership with Denver headquarters as Florida resident for forum non conveniens purposes because firm had office in Broward county and one partner lived in Broward). We recognize that the Third District has reache…
-
Sibaja v. DOW Chem. Co., 757 F.2d 1215 (11th Cir. 1985)…of an action under the doctrine, where one of the parties is a resident, Seaboard Coastline Railroad v. Swain, 362 So. 2d 17, 18 (Fla.1978); Houston v. Caldwell, 359 So. 2d 858, 861 (Fla. 1978); Waite v. Summit Leasing & Capital International Corp., 441 So. 2d 185, 185 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983);3 therefore, the plaintiffs continued, the district court transgressed the Erie rule in dismissing the action. The district court, after weighing the traditional forum non conveniens factors,4 concluded that the convenie…
Authorities Cited
- Houston v. Caldwell, 359 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1978)