JACK D. PHILLIPS, APPELLANT,
v.
AMERICAN OPTICAL CORPORATION, ET AL., 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.
The court held that a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens must be served within 60 days of service of process, and if untimely, should be denied.
Plaintiff filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against multiple defendants, including Union Carbide. Union Carbide filed a motion to dismiss based on for…
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 Timeliness Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Union Carbide Corporation filed a motion to dismiss Jack Phillips’s asbestos case based on forum non conveniens. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. Phillips raises four issues on appeal. We address only the issue of the timeliness of the motion and reverse.
On July 16, 2003, Jack Phillips filed suit against fifty-three corporations, including Union Carbide Corporation, on asbestos- related claims. The complaint was served on Union Carbide on December 4, 2003.
Union Carbide filed a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens on May 21, 2004. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. The trial court subsequently entered an order dismissing the case with prejudice.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061(g) provides: “A motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens shall be served not later than 60 days after service of process on the moving party.” Where a motion is untimely under this rule, the motion should be denied. See Wedge Hotel Mgmt., (Bahamas), Ltd. v. Meier, 868 So. 2d 552, 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).
In the case at bar, Union Carbide was served with the complaint on December 4, 2003. The motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens was not served until May 21, 2004, well outside the sixty-day window for filing such a motion. As a result, the trial court erred by not denying the motion to dismiss.
Therefore, as in Fox v. Union Carbide Corp., 910 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), a Fifteenth Judicial Circuit case in which the motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens suffered from the same timing deficiency, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
GUNTHER, FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gerri Lynn Fihe v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., 966 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…l be served not later than 60 days after service of process on the moving party.” We have strictly enforced this limitation, repeatedly reversing trial court attempts to grant untimely forum non conveniens motions. See Phillips v. Am. Optical Corp., 914 So. 2d 527, 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Bosarge v. Am. Optical Corp., 913 So. 2d 1265, 1266-67 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Sanders v. Union Carbide Corp., 911 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Fox v. Union Carbide Corp., 910 So. 2d 422, 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The thir…
Authorities Cited
- FOX v. Union Carbide Corp., 910 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Wedge Hotel Mgmt. v. Meier, 868 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)