ESTHER BOTTON, APPELLANT,
v.
TALI ELBAZ AND DAVID ESTRADE, 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.
Defendant Botton appealed the trial court's denial of her motion to dismiss a personal injury suit based on forum non conveniens. The Fourth District affirmed, holding that a forum non conveniens motion must be supported by sworn evidence or affidavits unless the basis for dismissal is apparent from the complaint itself.
The court affirmed the denial of the forum non conveniens motion because appellant submitted no sworn affidavits or other evidence to support the motion, and the alleged facts were not apparent from the face of the complaint.
[1] A motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens must be supported by sworn proof, such as affidavits or live testimony, unless the grounds for dismissal are evident fro…
[2] A defendant seeking dismissal of a suit based upon the forum non conveniens rule must support the motion by affidavit or other evidence offered under oath.
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“[A] dismissal based on forum non conveniens, if not evident from the allegations appearing on the face of the complaint, must be supported by record evidence, either in the form of affidavits or live testimony.”
Establishes the procedural requirement that forum non conveniens motions require evidentiary support unless the complaint itself shows grounds for dismissal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo Canadian teenagers were injured in a one-car accident in Peru, New York, involving a car owned by Botton and driven by a Canadian friend of her so…
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
STEVENSON, J.
Appellant, defendant below, challenges the trial court’s denial of her motion to dismiss appellees’ personal injury suit on account of forum non conveniens pursuant to Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla.1996). The trial court based its denial of the motion on the fact that appellant “offered no sworn proof to the trial court to substantiate the assertions made in [the] motion to dismiss.” We affirm.
The lawsuit was based on an incident which occurred in Peru, New York, when a car owned by appellant and driven by a Canadian friend of her son was involved in a one-car accident. Two teenage passengers, also Canadian residents, were ejected from the car and injured. The suit below was filed in Broward County by the two injured passengers. Appellant moved to dismiss for forum non conveniens, arguing that the lawsuit would be more conveniently litigated in New York, pointing out (1) that the accident was investigated by the Plattsburg Police Department, in Clinton County, upstate New York; (2) that the Canadian plaintiffs received medical treatment in New York; and (3) that the only connection with Florida is that the owner of the car resides here. Appellant submitted no sworn affidavits or other evidence with her motion.
We agree with the holding in Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc. v. Merchants Bonding Co., 707 So. 2d 1138, 1139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998):
[A] dismissal based on forum non conve-niens, if not evident from the allegations appearing on the face of the complaint, must be supported by record evidence, either in the form of affidavits or live testimony.
... Based upon the rationale of the eases interpreting section 47.122, Florida Statutes and the language of the new Rule 1.061, it appears that the procedure to be followed under the forum non conveniens rule is the same as the procedure to be followed under the forum non conveniens statute. To be clear: any defendant seeking dismissal of a suit based upon Rule 1.061 forum non conveniens must support the motion by affidavit or other evidence offered under oath.... The only exception would be where the complaint itself shows on its face that a forum non conve-niens transfer is warranted.
Cf. Carenza v. Sun Int’l Hotels, Ltd., 699 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(reversing an order granting a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens where the trial court failed to enumerate its findings pursuant to the four-step Kinney analysis and where there were no sworn allegations in support of the motion, compounding the court’s problems in determining how the trial court reached its decision); Graham v. Graham, 648 So. 2d 814, 815-16 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)(“A transfer of venue based on convenience is improper where no affidavits or other sworn proof support the motion.”).
In the instant case, there were no sworn affidavits or other sworn evidence in support of appellant’s motion which would have shed light on the issue of the convenience of the parties and witnesses or on the other factors mandated by Rule 1.061 and Kinney. Furthermore, the alleged “facts” put forward in appellant’s motion were not apparent from the face of the complaint. Accordingly, the order under review, denying appellant’s motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, is AFFIRMED.
DELL, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
WEG Industrias, S.A. v. Compania de Seguros Generales Granai, 937 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…pense. In cases “where the complaint itself shows on its face that a forum non conveniens transfer is warranted,” the trial court must dismiss the action where plaintiff fails to present evidence supporting its choice of forum. See Botton v. Elbaz, 722 So. 2d 974, 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). CAISA’s “evidence” consisted of an unauthenticated marine surveyor’s report by CAISA’s surveyor at Port Everglades and representations of counsel concerning potential witnesses. We are unable to accept bald representations…
-
Gonzalez v. Ayala, 936 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…y nature, of course, encompasses both the statute and the rule. See Thomas v. Thomas, 724 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Courts have, accordingly, followed the same general procedures in applying section 47.122 and Rule 1.061. See Botton v. Elbaz, 722 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). This court has held that under section 47.122 a plaintiffs forum selection is presumptively correct, and the burden is on the opposing party to show either that undue expense or substantial inconvenience to the parties or witne…
-
W.R. Grace & Co. v. Wolfgang Matschke and Laura Matschke, 733 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…forum in either Canada or Virginia, by reference to statutes or case law, proof in the form of affidavits or depositions was clearly necessary to fulfill the second requirement, the private interests or conveniences of the parties. Botton v. Elbaz, 722 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), and cases cited. Affirmed. GUNTHER, and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kinney Sys., Inc. v. The Cont'l Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1996)
- Carenza v. SUN Int'l Hotels, Ltd., 699 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Graham v. Graham, 648 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc. v. Merchs. Bonding Co., 707 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)