DETROIT TIGERS AND GULF INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOSE CASTILLO, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that the Judge of Compensation Claims did not abuse discretion by denying a motion to dismiss for improper venue when the movant was unprepared to prove the claim and was given an opportunity to schedule an evidentiary hearing.
The Detroit Tigers (E/C) filed a motion to dismiss based on improper venue. At the hearing, E/C were unprepared to prove their claim. The Judge of Com…
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 Improper Venue cases and more on FLexlaw
KAHN, J.
The Detroit Tigers (“E/C”) appeal the denial of their motion to dismiss by the Judge of Compensation Claims (“JCC”). Because we find that the JCC properly denied the motion to dismiss and gave the E/C an opportunity to schedule an evidentiary hearing on the issue of venue, we affirm.
Appellant’s brief correctly states that a claim of improper venue may be raised through a motion to dismiss. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(b); Kinetiks.Com, Inc. v. Sweeney, 789 So. 2d 1221, 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). However, it is apparent from the record that the E/C, having raised the venue dispute and scheduled a hearing on their motion to dismiss, were unprepared at that hearing to prove the claim of improper venue. The JCC twice instructed counsel that if he wanted an evidentiary hearing on venue, he would have to schedule one.
An order by this court directing the JCC to schedule an evidentiary hearing on the E/C’s motion is unnecessary because the E/C already has liberty to request one. Accordingly, we find that the JCC did not abuse his discretion by denying the E/C’s motion to dismiss and instructing the E/C to schedule an evidentiary hearing. See Air South, Inc. v. Spaziano, 547 So. 2d 314, 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Instead of seeking a hearing, E/C took this appeal.
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rodas v. Commercial Forming Corp. & CNA, 976 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…o between the parties and authorized by the judge of compensation claims[,] in the county where the injury occurred”). The judge of compensation claims did not abuse his discretion in refusing to order a change of venue here. See Tigers v. Castillo, 843 So. 2d 1026, 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Carlson-Southeast Corp. v. Geolithic, Inc., 530 So. 2d 1069, 1073 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); see also Tindall v. Smith, 601 So. 2d 627, 627 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The order denying a change in venue is affirmed. The appeal from t…
Authorities Cited
- AIR S., Inc. v. Spaziano, 547 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- KINETIKS.COM, Inc. v. Sweeney, 789 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)