VASALLO TOME, ET AL.
v.
HERRERA-ZENIL
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 trial court abuses its discretion in denying a forum non conveniens motion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061 when its written order lacks meaningful analysis of the Kinney factors and the hearing transcript does not demonstrate adequate consideration of those factors.
[1] A trial court's denial of a forum non conveniens motion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061 is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and such abuse occurs when the wr…
[2] A trial court may decide a forum non conveniens motion upon submission of affidavits rather than live testimony, though the presumption of correctness given to the trial…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Where, as here, the trial court's written order failed to set forth any "meaningful analysis" addressing each of the Kinney factors, the hearing transcript on the rule 1.061 motion must reflect that the trial court engaged in "an adequate analysis of the Kinney factors during the hearing itself."”
Court's statement of the legal standard for reviewing forum non conveniens denials
Defendants Vasallo Tome, Cine Nostalgia, Inc., and Cine Estelar, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds supported by affidavit…
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 De Novo Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed February 20, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D18-1391 Lower Tribunal No. 17-21958 ________________
Carlos Luis Vasallo Tome, et al., Appellants,
vs.
Victor Herrera-Zenil, etc., Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Dennis J. Murphy, Judge.
Dorta & Ortega, P.A., and Omar Ortega, Evelyn Reyes and Nicole Ruesca, for appellants.
FORS|Attorneys at Law, and Jorge L. Fors, Jr., for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.
SCALES, J.
Carlos Luis Vasallo Tome, Cine Nostalgia, Inc. and Cine Estelar, Inc., the defendants below, appeal a non-final order denying their Florida Rule of Civil
2 Procedure 1.061 motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds. The order on review is an unelaborated order denying the appellants’ rule 1.061 motion “for the reasons stated in the record,” which we review for an abuse of discretion. See Rolls- Royce, Inc. v. Garcia, 77 So. 3d 855, 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).
The appellants argue that the trial court denied their rule 1.061 motion, which was supported by affidavits, without conducting the required analysis set forth in Kinney Systems, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1996) (codified in rule 1.061). We agree. Where, as here, the trial court’s written order failed to set forth any “meaningful analysis” addressing each of the Kinney factors, the hearing transcript on the rule 1.061 motion must reflect that the trial court engaged in “an adequate analysis of the Kinney factors during the hearing itself . . . .” Camperos v. Estrella, 126 So. 3d 351, 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (quoting ABA Capital Mkts. Corp. v. Provincial de Reaseguros C.A., 101 So. 3d 385, 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)); Levinson & Lichtman, LLP v. Levinson, 35 So. 3d 182, 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (concluding the trial court abused its discretion in granting a rule 1.061 motion “because neither the order granting the motion nor the hearing transcript on the motion demonstrates the trial court performed a Kinney analysis”). The May2, 2018 hearing transcript does not reveal a consideration of the Kinney factors.1
3
The appellants further argue that the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing to resolve purported conflicts between the parties’ competing affidavits. On this point, we disagree. While, on remand, the trial court is free to conduct an evidentiary hearing, the lower court may decide a forum non conveniens motion “upon the submission of affidavits rather than live testimony.”2 See Rolls- Royce, Inc., 77 So. 3d at 859 n.4.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand the case so that the trial court may articulate its findings on each of the Kinney factors. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
997 So. 2d 1133, 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). “In that situation, this court has the latitude to address the previously-unaddressed Kinney factors for the first time on appeal in the interest of judicial economy and efficiency.” Id. We decline the appellants’ invitation to conduct a de novo review in this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Sports Channel Ltd. v. Eliezer Tabib, 323 So. 3d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
-
Poultry & Indus. Suppliers, Inc. v. Incubacol, 313 So. 3d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
-
Johnny's Pool Super Ctr., Inc. v. Foreverpools Caribbean, LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
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)
- Woods v. Nova Cos. Belize Ltd., 739 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Ciba-Geigy Ltd. v. The Fish Peddler, Inc., 691 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Rolls-Royce, Inc. v. Garcia, 77 So. 3d 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Bridgestone/Firestone N. Am. Tire, LLC v. Hortensia Palmira Garcia, 991 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- ABA Cap. Mkts. Corp. v. Provincial de Reaseguros C.A., 101 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Leonor Sarmiento Camperos v. Estrella, 126 So. 3d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- B. Little & Co., Inc. v. Choi WAI Printing (hong Kong) Ltd. (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
- Ryder Sys., Inc. v. Davis, 997 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Levinson & Lichtman, LLP v. Levinson, 35 So. 3d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)