JOSAPHAT CHARLES, APPELLANT,
v.
BRYAN MCMAHON AND HEIDI MCMAHON, 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 trial court erred by denying the motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds without conducting the required analysis.
A Florida resident defendant moved to dismiss a negligence case filed by Washington State plaintiffs concerning an accident in Nebraska. The trial cou…
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 Automobile Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant/appellant appeals an order denying his motion to dismiss this automobile negligence case on forum non conveniens grounds. Although he is a resident of Florida, the plaintiffs are residents of Washington State, and the accident occurred in Nebraska. The appellant moved to dismiss under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061, which requires the trial court to engage in the analysis elaborated in Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla.1996). We reverse because the trial court did not engage in this analysis, either at the hearing or in its written order of denial.1
It appears that the court’s only basis for denying the motion was the general presumption in favor of plaintiffs choice of forum. In Value Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Harbert, 720 So. 2d 552, 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), this court explained, “Although the federal doctrine of forum non conveniens adopted in Kinney, and rule 1.061(a)(2) provide that there is a ‘strong presumption against disturbing plaintiffs’ initial forum choice,’ that presumption is inapplicable where a plaintiff has selected a foreign forum which is not convenient to the plaintiff.” (Citations omitted). We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings on the motion to dismiss consistent with this opinion.
STEVENSON, C.J., WARNER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. . In the second of two hearings on this motion, the trial court may have been misled by the lawyers into thinking that it had performed the Kinney analysis in the first hearing, but that was not the case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wood v. Bluestone, 9 So. 3d 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…the trial court’s ultimate determination, the scarcity of the text of the order will not matter.” Id. Nonetheless, the court must still “engage in the [Kinney ] analysis, either at the hearing or in its written order of denial.” Charles v. McMahon, 916 So. 2d 1013, 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). In Potter, where the “scarcity of the text of the order” did not result in a reversal, this Court relied on the fact that “[a]ll of these steps [of the Kinney analysis] were discussed at length during the hearing and in l…
-
TRW Auto. U.S. LLC v. Anibal Oscar Papandopoles, 949 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…udice. Strauss v. Allstate Ins. Co., 855 So. 2d 167, 168-69 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). This court has consistently held that the trial court must conduct an analysis of these factors before ruling on a forum non conveniens motion. See Charles v. McMahon, 916 So. 2d 1013, 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (reversing order denying motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds where trial court failed to engage in Kinney analysis either at the hearing or in its written order of denial); Strauss, 855 So. 2d at 169 (reversin…
-
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Carter, 951 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…ismiss based on forum non conveniens. We agree. The failure of the trial court to address the Kinney factors would generally result in a reversal and remand to allow the trial court to perform an analysis pursuant to Kinney. See Charles v. McMahon, 916 So. 2d 1013, 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (reversing trial court’s denial of motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens “because the trial court did not engage in [Kinney] analysis, either at the hearing or in its written order of dismissal,” and remanding to…
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)
- Value Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Harbert, 720 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)