TRANSPORTES AEROS MERCANTILES PAN AMERICANOS (TAMPA) AND BATCH AIR, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
HUMBERTO MEDINA CALDERON, GLORIA ECHEVERRY, LUIS JAVIER DUQUE, CARLOS ENRIQUE ESTRADA, AMPARO MEJIA BETANCUR, APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1985-12-03
Nos. 84-2773, 85-188 to 85-191
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUB-BART and BASKIN, JJ.
480 So. 2d 125 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1985) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Topics
Doing Business In A State Principal Place Of Business Forum Non Conveniens

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Doing Business In A State cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

[*126] PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Houston v. Caldwell, 359 So. 2d 858 (Fla.1978).

HUBBART and BASKIN, JJ., concur.

Concurrence
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge

(specially concurring).

I concur in the affirmance of the determination below that forum non conveniens does not apply to this case, but only because one of the two corporate defendants, which jointly moved for dismissal on that basis, is a Florida corporation and has its principal place of business here. Because the issue is not before us, it is unnecessary to consider whether the holding in Houston v. Caldwell, 359 So. 2d 858 (Fla.1978), which precludes the doctrine when either party is a “resident” of Florida, applies when a foreign corporation is only doing business in this state — as opposed to maintaining its headquarters or principal place of business here, as was the case in Adams v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 224 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969), which was adopted and followed in Houston, and in the post-Houston decision, involving the same corporation, of Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Swain, 362 So. 2d 17 (Fla.1978).

Thus, although I acknowledge severe doubts about the question, I express no direct opinion as to whether Sempe v. Coordinated Caribbean Transport, Inc., 363 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 372 So. 2d 467 (Fla.1979), to the uncertain extent that it indicates that the two concepts are equivalent, was correctly decided.1

. In holding that "[i]t can hardly be contended that suing appellees at the place of its official headquarters and principal place of business in Florida is an imposition,” 363 So. 2d at 197 [e.s.], Sempe seems, perhaps erroneously, to have equated Florida as the principal place of all the corporation's business (Seaboard’s national headquarters is in Jacksonville), with the county which is the principal location of whatever business a company carries on within the state, even if its Florida activities are only a small part of the whole.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Nat'l Rifle Ass'n OF Am. v. Linotype Co., 591 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
    …orporate headquarters is not in Florida.1 As stated by Judge Edward Klein in the order under review: “As to the question posed in this case, this Court takes guidance from the special concurring opinion in Transportes Aeros Mercantiles v. Calderon, 480 So. 2d 125 (Fla. [3d DCA] 1985). There, Chief Judge Schwartz stated: T concur in the affirmance of the determination below that forum non conveniens does not apply to this case, but only because one of the two corporate defendants, which jointly moved for dis…
  • Piper Aircraft Corp. v. Anneliese Schwendemann, 578 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
    …the principal place of business of the defendant corporation is in this state. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Swain, 362 So. 2d 17 (Fla.1978); Houston v. Caldwell, 359 So. 2d 858 (Fla.1978); Transportes Aeros Mercantiles Pan Americanos v. Calderon, 480 So. 2d 125 (Fla.3d DCA 1985) (Schwartz, C.J., specially concurring); Adams v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 224 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); see Oboussier-Lowe v. Kuehne & Nagel (A.G. & Co.), 531 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Tropigas, S.A. v. Anderson, 4…
  • Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc. v. Anneliese Schwendemann, 579 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
    …firmed. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Swain, 362 So. 2d 17 (Fla.1978); Houston v. Caldwell, 359 So. 2d 858 (Fla.1978); Piper Aircraft Corp. v. Schwendemann, 578 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Transportes Aeros Mercantiles Pan Americanos v. Calderon, 480 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (Schwartz, C.J., specially concurring); see Sempe v. Coordinated Caribbean Transport, Inc., 363 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 372 So. 2d 467 (Fla.1979).…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw