ARC GLOBAL INVESTMENTS, II, LLC, ORLANDO
v.
DIGITAL WORLD ACQUISITION CORPORATION, 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.
An interlocutory appeal challenging venue and forum non conveniens is moot when the complaint has been superseded by an amended complaint with additional venue allegations and claims, requiring the trial court to reassess these issues in the first instance.
[1] An interlocutory appeal challenging venue and forum non conveniens becomes moot when the complaint is superseded by an amended complaint containing additional venue alleg…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“The trial court should have the opportunity to assess venue and forum non conveniens for itself under the second amended complaint.”
Court's explanation for dismissing the venue appeal as moot due to the superseding complaint.
Arc Global Investments II, LLC and Patrick Orlando appealed the trial court's denial of their motions to dismiss for improper venue and forum non conv…
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 Motion To Stay Litigation cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
ARC GLOBAL INVESTMENTS II, LLC, and PATRICK ORLANDO,
Appellants,
v.
TRUMP MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY GROUP
CORP, f/k/a DIGITAL WORLD ACQUISITION CORPORATION; and TMTG SUB., INC.,
Appellees.
No. 2D2024-1780
April 30, 2025
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Hunter W. Carroll, Judge.
Kevin P. Jacobs, Christopher J. King, and Antonio M. Hernandez, Jr., of Homer Bonner Jacobs Ortiz, P.A., Miami, for Appellant ARC Global Investments II, LLC.
Adam L. Schwartz and Andrew T. Figueroa, of Vedder Price (FL), LLP, Miami, for Appellant Patrick Orlando.
Samuel J. Salario, Jr., Jason Gonzalez, Mathew D. Gutierrez, and Caroline May Poor of Lawson Huck Gonzalez PLLC, Tallahassee, for Appellees.
ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, Judge. ARC Global Investments II, LLC, and Patrick Orlando appeal the trial court's order denying their motions to dismiss the first amended
2 complaint for improper venue and forum non conveniens and to stay the action until the completion of another lawsuit. We dismiss as moot ARC and Orlando's interlocutory appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 directed at venue and forum non conveniens because the first amended complaint has been superseded by a second amended complaint that adds several additional claims, parties, and venue allegations. See Wilner Hartley & Metcalf, P.A. v. Howard & Assocs., 65 So. 3d 620, 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding that a venue appeal was moot because the superseding complaint "included additional venue allegations and also alleged additional causes of action" and explaining that whether venue was proper under the latest complaint was "for the trial court to determine in the first instance"); see also Fogarty Van Lines, Inc. v. Kelly, 443 So. 2d 1070, 1071 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (noting that a venue appeal was technically moot because of a pleading amendment but reviewing under the unique circumstances of the case); cf. A.G. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 932 So. 2d 311, 313–14 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (dismissing appeal because the issues raised were moot). The trial court should have the opportunity to assess venue and forum non conveniens for itself under the second amended complaint. We review in certiorari a court's nonfinal order denying a motion to stay litigation. Learn v. Shackelford, 903 So. 2d 335, 336 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); see also Goodenow v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 306 So. 3d 238, 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020); Inphynet Contracting Servs., Inc. v. Matthews, 196 So. 3d 449, 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). On this record, however, ARC and Orlando have failed to demonstrate that they will suffer irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on appeal if this litigation is allowed to proceed. See Rodriguez v. Miami-Dade County, 117 So. 3d 400, 404 (Fla. 2013) (explaining that irreparable harm is a jurisdictional prerequisite in
KELLY and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Rodriguez v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 117 So. 3d 400 (Fla. 2013)
- Ericson v. State, 932 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Fogarty van Lines, Inc. v. Kelly, 443 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Learn v. Shackelford, 903 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Goodenow v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 305 So. 3d 13 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)