P.V. HOLDING CORP., D/B/A AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION AND, DAVID P. ROMA, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT TENORE AND MICHELLE TENORE, HIS WIFE, 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.
Avis and its manager Roma appealed the trial court's denial of their motion to transfer venue from Miami-Dade County to Palm Beach County in a personal injury case arising from a car accident. The appellate court reversed, holding that although plaintiffs generally have venue privilege, that privilege must yield when the convenience of parties and witnesses, or the interests of justice, require transfer.
The trial court erred in denying the motion to transfer venue. Although plaintiffs generally have the right to choose the forum where venue is proper in multiple counties, that privilege is not absolute and must yield when the convenience of parties and witnesses or the interests of justice require transfer.
[1] A plaintiff's choice of forum is not paramount and will not be honored where the convenience of the parties or witnesses, or the interests of justice, require the action…
[2] Where a cause of action arises outside the county of suit and most important witnesses and contacts are located outside that county, a motion to transfer venue should be…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“while a plaintiffs choice of forum is entitled to respect, that choice is not paramount. The plaintiffs venue privilege will not be honored where the convenience of the parties or witnesses, or the interests of justice, require the action to be transferred.”
Establishes the legal standard that plaintiffs' venue privilege, though respected, yields to considerations of convenience and justice
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs Robert and Michelle Tenore sued Avis and Roma in Miami-Dade County for injuries sustained in a car accident. The accident occurred in Palm …
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 Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
P.V. Holding Corporation, d/b/a Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. (“Avis”) and David P. Roma (“Roma”), appeal the denial of a motion to transfer venue to Palm Beach County. We reverse.
Appellees, Robert Tenore and Michelle Tenore (“plaintiffs”), filed suit in Miami-Dade County against Avis and Roma, seeking damages for injuries sustained in a car accident. The accident occurred in Palm Beach County, where the plaintiffs previously resided.
On November 2, 1994, Avis moved to dismiss the complaint, or alternatively to have the action transferred to Palm Beach County. All of the medical treatment occurred in Palm Beach County, and all of the witnesses to the action, with the exception of co-defendant Roma, are located in Palm Beach County. The trial court denied the motion.
It is well established that where venue is proper in more than one county, the choice of forum rests with the plaintiff. See Taylor v. Dasilva, 401 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Houchins v. Florida E.C. Ry. Co., 388 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). However, while a plaintiffs choice of forum is entitled to respect, that choice is not paramount. The plaintiffs venue privilege will not be honored where the convenience of the parties or witnesses, or the interests of justice, require the action to be transferred. See Burger King v. Koeppel, 564 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Hu v. Crockett, 426 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Kelly-Springfield Tire Company v. Moore, 355 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
Here, the accident occurred in Palm Beach County and all of the witnesses, with the exception of co-defendant Roma, are located in Palm Beach County. Because the cause of action arose outside Miami-Dade County, and most, if not all, of the important witnesses and contacts are located outside Miami-Dade County, we find the trial court erred in denying the motion to transfer venue. See Brunschwig v. Simpson, 711 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Prudential Property and Casualty Ins. Co. v. Palma, 622 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Burger King v. Koeppel, 564 So. 2d at 209. Accordingly, the order denying the motion to transfer venue is reversed, with directions that the cause be transferred to Palm Beach County.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Romilio F. Marques, M.D. v. Garcia, 245 So. 3d 900 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…ustice." Taylor v Dasilva, 401 So. 2d 1161, 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). And while a plaintiff's choice of venue is accorded a presumption of validity, that choice is not a "paramount consideration" that cannot be overcome. P.V. Holding Corp. v. Tenore, 721 So. 2d 430, 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) ; Hu v. Crockett, 426 So. 2d 1275, 1278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Section 47.122 commands attention to three considerations: (1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the convenience of the witnesses; and (3) the interest of justic…1 / 2
-
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. & Ford Motor Co. v. Est. OF Carlos Hernandez Chavez, 8 So. 3d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…at an appellate court reviews the trial court’s order denying a motion to transfer venue for abuse of discretion). “[Wjhere venue is proper in more than one county, the choice of forum rests with the plaintiff.” P.V. Holding [*1159] Corp. v. Tenore, 721 So. 2d 430, 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). However, section 47.122 authorizes any court of record to “transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought” for “the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of ju…
-
Hightower v. Est. OF Louise Lyman & Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc'y, 58 So. 3d 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…tely failed to address venue as to the allegations against Woodmen. See § 47.041, Fla. Stat. (2010) (“Actions on several causes of action may be brought in any county where any of the causes of action arose.”); see also P.V. Holding Corp. v. Tenore, 721 So. 2d 430, 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (“It is well established that where venue is proper in more than one county, the choice of forum rests with the plaintiff.”). Because the Estate did not successfully challenge venue as to Woodmen — or even raise the issue, fo…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stephen C.S. HU v. Crockett, 426 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Coleman P. Houchins, Jr. v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 388 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. v. Noreene Moore, 355 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- In re the Est. OF Helen G. Rust v. Bundy, 401 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Burger King Corp. v. Koeppel, 564 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Schwam v. Home Sav. OF Am., FSB, 622 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Brunschwig v. Simpson, 711 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)