BARRY S. MANKOWITZ, M.D., DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
v.
JEAN M. STAUB AND HOWARD STAUB, HER HUSBAND, PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES, V. AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS, A FEDERALLY CHARTERED CORPORATION, FISHERMAN'S INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION D/B/A FISHERMAN'S HOSPITAL, DEFENDANTS/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.
A medical malpractice case where the defendant physician challenged venue in Dade County. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the lower court's denial of the motion to transfer venue to Monroe County, where all parties resided and the cause of action accrued, holding that a multi-county defendant cannot use its presence in multiple counties to defeat proper venue in another defendant's sole county of residence.
The court reversed both the denial of the motion to transfer venue and the denial of the motion based on forum non conveniens. Under Florida Statutes sections 47.011 and 47.021, actions must be brought where defendants reside, and a defendant with residences in multiple counties cannot use that presence to defeat proper venue in a defendant's sole county of residence. Monroe County is the proper forum.
[1] An action must be brought in the county where the defendant resides, unless specific statutory exceptions apply.
[2] Where multiple defendants reside in different counties, an action may be brought in any county where any defendant resides.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Section 47.011, Florida Statutes (1987), states that an action is to be brought in the county where the defendant resides.”
Establishes the primary statutory rule for venue determination in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJean and Howard Staub, residents of Monroe County, filed a medical malpractice action in Dade County against Dr. Barry Mankowitz, Fisherman's Hospital…
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 Venue Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the denial of defendant Barry Mankowitz’s motion to transfer venue from Dade to Monroe County based on the following brief analysis.
The cause of action involved here, filed in Dade County, accrued in Monroe County. The plaintiffs, Jean and Howard Staub, are residents of Monroe County as are defendants Mankowitz and Fisherman’s Hospital. Defendant American National Red Cross, which successfully opposed Man-kowitz’s motion to transfer venue from Dade to Monroe, is a federally chartered corporation with chapters in both Dade and Monroe Counties.
Section 47.011, Florida Statutes (1987), states that an action is to be brought in the county where the defendant resides. Section 47.021, Florida Statutes (1987), provides that where an action is brought against two or more defendants residing in different counties, the action may be brought in any county in which any defendant resides. Here, all defendants reside in Monroe County even though the Red Cross may also be said to reside in Dade County. Because the Red Cross resides in both Dade and Monroe Counties, it may not use section 47.021 to defeat defendant Mankowitz’s right to be sued in Monroe County, the site of his sole residence. Enfinger v. Baxley, 96 So. 2d 538, 540 (Fla.1957); Allen v. Summers, 273 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Mercer, 226 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). Consequently, the first order under review entered in this case, denying appellant’s motion for change of venue, is reversed.
Similarly, the second order under review, denying appellant’s motion to transfer venue on forum non conveniens grounds, was equally improper. Under the forum non conveniens statute (§ 47.122, Fla.Stat. (1987)) and the facts of this case, it is clear that Monroe County is the proper forum. The fact that certain expert witnesses and treating physicians reside in Dade County is not sufficient to defeat Monroe County venue. See Inter-American Sunbelt Corp. v. Borozny, 512 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Levy v. Hawk’s Cay, Inc., 505 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Della-Donna v. Gore Newspaper Co., 390 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), review denied, 399 So. 2d 1141 (Fla.1981).
Accordingly, we reverse the non-final orders under review and remand the cause for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded with directions to transfer the action to Monroe County, Florida.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Lesia Mooney, 147 So. 3d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…1166 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (disagreeing “that the convenience of the expert witnesses is of utmost importance” because “[i]t goes without saying that most expert witnesses travel for their work and are paid for doing so”); see also Mankowitz v. Staub, 553 So. 2d 1299, 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (“The fact that certain expert witnesses and treating physicians reside in Dade County is not sufficient to defeat Monroe County venue.”); but see Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Young, 690 So. 2d 1377, 1379-80 (Fla. 1st…
-
Aladdin Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Jones, 687 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…0; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. McCrone, 655 So. 2d 1319, 1320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Levy County School Board v. Bowdoin, 607 So. 2d 479, 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Valjean Corp. v. Heininger, 559 So. 2d 677, 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Mankowitz v. Staub, 553 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Mercer, 226 So. 2d 270, 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). The next question, therefore, is whether the three corporate defendants in the instant case have a common county of residence. They do not. Section 47.0…1 / 2
-
A-Ryan Staffing Solutions Inc. v. ACE Staffing Mgmt. Unlimited, Inc., 917 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (action against multiple defendants must be brought in county of joint residency where individual defendant and corporate defendant share residence, although corporation resides in more than one county); Mankowitz v. Staub, 553 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)(individual defendant has right to be sued in county of residence, where foreign corporation shares residence with individual defendant, although it resides in more than one county); Inter-Medic Health Centers, Inc. v. Murphy, 400…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miller v. Miller, 96 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1957)
- Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Levada Mercer, 226 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Alphonse Della-Donna v. Gore Newspaper Co., 390 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Allen v. Summers, 273 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Ledee v. Lebrun, 512 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Levy v. Hawk's CAY, Inc., 505 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)