IMPERIAL PAVING, LLC, ET AL.
v.
LAURA E. TRUJILLO, ETC.
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.
Imperial Paving and related defendants appealed the trial court's denial of their motions to dismiss or transfer venue based on improper venue and forum non conveniens. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that defendants failed to meet their burden of presenting record evidence of substantial inconvenience or undue expense to justify a venue change.
The trial court neither abused its discretion nor committed error in denying appellants' motions to dismiss for improper venue or forum non conveniens and their motions to transfer venue. The defendants failed to carry their burden of presenting record evidence demonstrating substantial inconvenience or undue expense to justify a venue change.
[1] A trial court's order denying a motion to dismiss for improper venue or forum non conveniens is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
[2] A trial court's ruling on a motion to transfer venue under section 47.122 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
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“a plaintiff's forum selection is presumptively correct, and in order to successfully challenge that selection, the burden is upon the defendant to show either substantial inconvenience or that undue expense requires a change for the convenience of the parties or witnesses.”
Establishes the legal standard that defendants must meet to overcome the presumptive correctness of plaintiff's chosen forum
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceImperial Paving, LLC, John S. Odom, JSO Services, LLC, and several other defendants were sued in the trial court and filed motions to dismiss for impr…
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 Burden Of Proof For Venue Transfer cases and more on FLexlaw
EMAS, J.
In these three consolidated appeals, Imperial Paving, LLC, John S. Odom, and JSO Services, LLC, appeal the trial court’s May 3, 2023, nonfinal orders denying their (1) motion to dismiss for improper venue or forum non conveniens; (2) motion to transfer venue based on forum non conveniens; and all related motions of the joining defendants.1 Upon our review, see B. Little & Co., Inc. v. Choi Wai Printing (Hong Kong) Ltd., 364 So. 3d 1078, 1080 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (noting that an appellate court generally applies an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a trial court’s order denying motion to dismiss for improper venue or forum non conveniens); Port Royal Prop., LLC v. Woodson Elec. Sols., Inc., 305 So. 3d 50, 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“[A] trial court's ruling on a motion to transfer venue under section 47.122 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”); Huber v. Huber, 314 So. 3d 363, 365 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“However, where there are no material facts in dispute and proper venue turns on a question of law, [the Court] review[s] such an order de novo.”), we conclude the trial court neither abused its discretion nor committed any error of law in denying appellants’ motions. See R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Mooney, 147 So. 3d 42, 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“As this court has already confirmed, ‘a plaintiff's forum selection is presumptively correct, and in order to successfully challenge that selection, the burden is upon the defendant to show either substantial inconvenience or that undue expense requires a change for the convenience of the parties or witnesses.’ This requires the defendant to come forward with record evidence to support a transfer.”) (alteration in original) (quoting Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co. v. Burns, 672 So. 2d 834, 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (additional citation omitted). See also SMA Behav. Health Servs., Inc. v. Loewinger, 355 So. 3d 988, 989 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (noting that, when considering granting or denying a motion to dismiss, or transfer venue, pursuant to forum non conveniens, courts should consider three factors: “(1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the convenience of the witnesses; and (3) the interest of justice.” (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. James, 33 So. 3d 91, 92-93 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)). Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Lesia Mooney, 147 So. 3d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Ford Motor Co. v. James, 33 So. 3d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- JSO Servs., LLC v. Trujillo, 364 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
- SMA Behavioral Health Servs., Inc. v. Loewinger, 355 So. 3d 988 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
- MGA Ins. Co., Inc. v. NEW Vista Diagnostic Imaging Servs., LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)