CORDIS CORPORATION
v.
WILLIE PAUL EDNESOME
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.
Cordis Corporation appealed a trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens in a product liability suit brought by an Alabama resident alleging injuries from a defective Cordis IVC Filter. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the motion despite Cordis being a Florida corporation.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cordis's motion to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens. The decision to grant or deny such a motion rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the trial court properly considered all relevant forum non conveniens factors.
[1] A trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and is reviewed f…
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 intelligenceWillie Paul Ednesome, an Alabama citizen and resident, sued Cordis Corporation for product liability, alleging that defects in the Cordis OptEase Retr…
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 Non Conveniens cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed July 14, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D20-1676 Lower Tribunal No. 17-20144 ________________
Cordis Corporation,
Appellant,
vs.
Willie Paul Ednesome,
Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David C. Miller, Judge. Crowell & Moring LLP, and Vincent J. Galluzzo (Washington, D.C.); and Wallen Kelley, and John D. Golden, for appellant. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., and Joseph R. Johnson (West Palm Beach), for appellee. Before HENDON, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Cordis Corporation (“Cordis”) appeals from a non-final order denying its motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non-conveniens. We affirm.
The plaintiff, Willie Paul Ednesome, brought a product liability suit against Cordis, alleging that defects in the Cordis OptEase Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filter (“Cordis IVC Filter”) caused his injuries. The plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the state of Alabama.1 Cordis is a Florida corporation and maintains an office in Miami Lakes, Florida.
Cordis’s Miami Lakes office is the central location for handling product complaints, quality control, risk management, training, and regulatory compliance involving the Cordis IVC Filter. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Cordis’s motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens. Based on our review of the record, including the trial court’s order addressing each of the forum non conveniens factors,2 we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. As such, we affirm the order under review.
Aerolineas Argentinas, S.A. v. Gimenez, 807 So. 2d 111, 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1 The implantation of the Cordis IVC Filter occurred in Georgia. 2 The analysis for forum non conveniens is well established in Florida law. See Cortez v. Palace Resorts, 123 So. 3d 1085 (Fla. 2013); Kinney Sys., Inc. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1996); Abeid-Saba v. Carnival Corp., 184 So. 3d 593, 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Telemundo Network Grp., LLC v. Azteca Int'l Corp., 957 So. 2d 705, 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.061(a).
2002) (stating that decision to grant or deny a forum non conveniens motion for dismissal rests in the sound discretion of the trial court).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 706 F.2d 755 (6th Cir. 1983)…See Underwood v. Commissioner, 535 F. 2d 309 (5th Cir.1976); Frankel v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 343 (1973), aff’d. 506 F. 2d 1051 (3d Cir. 1974); Perry v. Commissioner, 47 T.C. 159 (1966), aff’d 392 F. 2d 458 (8th Cir.1968); Prashker v. Commissioner, 59 T.C. 172 (1972); Perry v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1293 (1970); Raynor v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 762 (1968); Borg v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 257 (1968); cf. Rev.Rul. 81-187, 1981-2 CB 167 (no basis step-up from unsecured note that remained unpaid at end of year; m…
Authorities Cited
- Kinney Sys., Inc. v. The Cont'l Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1996)
- Shahla M. Rabie Cortez v. Palace Resorts, Inc., 123 So. 3d 1085 (Fla. 2013)
- Aerolineas Argentinas, S.A. v. Gimenez, 807 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Telemundo Network Grp., LLC v. Azteca Int'l Corp., 957 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- Abeid-Saba v. Carnival Corp., 184 So. 3d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)