SIANIE JOSEPH
v.
PRINCESS MARKETING LLC, ET AL.
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.
A mandatory forum selection clause in a contract is presumptively valid and enforceable when the party challenging it fails to show enforcement would be unjust or unreasonable; however, when venue is improper due to such a clause, the proper remedy is transfer to the correct venue, not dismissal.
[1] A forum selection clause in a contract is presumptively valid and enforceable, and a party challenging its enforcement must prove that enforcement would be unjust or unre…
[2] A forum selection clause is mandatory where the plain language of the clause indicates exclusivity, requiring all disputes to be litigated in the designated forum.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Forum selection clauses are presumptively valid, and the party seeking to prevent enforcement must prove that such enforcement would be unjust or unreasonable.”
Establishes the legal standard for challenging enforcement of a forum selection clause.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoseph entered into a contract with Princess Marketing for assistance with a business venture. Joseph filed suit in Miami-Dade County in May 2023 agai…
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 Selection Clause Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed September4, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0274 Lower Tribunal No. 2023-16945-CA-01 ________________
Sianie Joseph, Appellant,
vs.
Princess Marketing LLC, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David C. Miller, Judge.
Antonio G. Hernandez, P.A., and Antonio G. Hernandez, for appellant.
No appearance, for appellees.
Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES and GORDO, JJ.
GORDO, J.
2
Sianie Joseph (“Joseph”) appeals an order granting Princess Marketing, LLC (“Princess Marketing”), WealthyCollegeKid, LLC (“WCK”) and Christianna Hurt’s (“Hurt”) motion to dismiss the complaint for improper venue. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
I.
Joseph entered into a contract with Princess Marketing, wherein Princess Marketing agreed to assist Joseph in a new business venture. In May 2023, Joseph filed a complaint against Princess Marketing, WCK and Hurt in Miami-Dade County for breach of contract, fraud and a violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss alleging Miami-Dade was an improper venue because the contract contained a forum selection clause requiring all actions stemming from the agreement to be brought in Orlando, Florida. Joseph responded in opposition asserting venue was proper in Miami-Dade. After a hearing, the trial court granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the case with prejudice.1 This appeal followed.
3
II.
“The interpretation of a contractual forum selection clause is a question of law, such that our standard of review is de novo.” Am. Safety Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mijares Holding Co., LLC, 76 So. 3d 1089, 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). “An order granting a motion to dismiss also presents a pure question of law and is subject to de novo review.” W. Bay Plaza Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Sika Corp., 338 So. 3d 32, 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (quoting Abitbol v. Benarroch, 273 So. 3d 147, 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)). While a trial court is typically limited to the four corners of the complaint when considering a motion to dismiss, “there are several exceptions to this general rule.” Steiner Transocean Ltd. v. Efremova, 109 So. 3d 871, 873 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). “[A] court is permitted to consider evidence outside the four corners of the complaint where the motion to dismiss challenges . . . improper venue.” Id. (footnote omitted).
On appeal, Joseph challenges the trial court’s enforcement of the contractual forum selection clause. “It is well established that ‘parties may provide by their agreement where suit may be brought to enforce it.’” Pocock v. Pocock, 360 So. 3d 1219, 1222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023) (quoting Interval Mktg.
merely by reason of his official character; he is not liable for torts committed by or for the corporation unless he has participated in the wrong.” (quoting Orlovsky v. Solid Surf, Inc., 405 So. 2d 1363, 1364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981))).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (13 total)
- Corbblin Bush v. State, 945 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 2006)
- Orlovsky v. Solid Surf, Inc., 405 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- World Vacation Travel, S.A. v. Brooker, 799 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Glowacki v. State, 894 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Interval Mktg. Assocs., Inc. v. SEA Club Assocs. IV, Ltd., 468 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Corsec v. VMC Int'l Franchising, LLC, 909 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Am. Safety Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mijares Holding Co., LLC, 76 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Steiner Transocean Ltd. v. Milena Efremova, 109 So. 3d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- Home Loan Corp. v. AZA, 930 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- W. BAY Plaza Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Sika Corp., 338 So. 3d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)