CORDIS CORPORATION
v.
JESSICA JOHNSON-WILLIAMS
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 a product liability suit on forum non conveniens grounds. The plaintiff, a Texas resident, sued Cordis, a Florida corporation, over injuries allegedly caused by a defective Cordis IVC Filter. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to deny the motion to dismiss.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the forum non conveniens motion, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the case to proceed in Florida.
[1] The decision to grant or deny a forum non conveniens motion rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and an abuse of discretion standard applies to appellate…
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 intelligenceJessica Johnson-Williams, a Texas citizen and resident, brought a product liability suit against Cordis Corporation alleging that defects in the Cordi…
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. 3D20-1675 Lower Tribunal No. 18-27247 ________________
Cordis Corporation,
Appellant,
vs.
Jessica Johnson-Williams,
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, Jessica Johnson-Williams, brought a product liability suit against Cordis, alleging that defects in the Cordis OptEase Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filter (“Cordis IVC Filter”) caused her injuries. The plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the state of Texas. 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,1 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 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
-
Brountas v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 692 F.2d 152 (1st Cir. 1982)…abandonment losses for mere pieces of a leasehold. The law is clear. To be entitled to an abandonment loss, a taxpayer must show “an intention ‘to abandon the property, coupled with an act of abandonment ....’” Massey-Ferguson, Inc. v. Commissioner, 59 T.C. 220, 225 (1972) (emphasis added). Where “delay rentals” were no longer paid, the Tax Court found such an “act” and allowed the loss deduction. Where the taxpayer continued to pay “delay rentals,” however, the court found no such “act.” The Tax Court in…
-
CRC Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 693 F.2d 281 (3d Cir. 1982)…t so long as the investors continued to pay delay rentals [*284] they still had the right to explore all strata in the leasehold, and thus there was no “intention to abandon coupled with an act of abandonment.” Massey-Ferguson, Inc. v. Commissioner, 59 T.C. 220, 225 (1972) (emphasis supplied). The Brountas court affirmed this finding. The Brountas and Gibson Products opinions analyze at length the two reasons relied upon by the taxpayer for deductibility of the expenses of the limited partnership represen…
-
McCRORY Corp. v. United States, 651 F.2d 828 (2d Cir. 1981)…71). In contrast, the costs incident to the cash purchases of assets are deductible when the purchasers dispose of them. E. g., Parmelee Transportation Co. v. United States, 351 F. 2d 619 (Ct.Cl.1965) (dictum); Massey-Ferguson, Inc. v. Commissioner, 59 T.C. 220 (1972). An evidentiary hearing is necessary, the majority contends, to enable the district court appropriately to allocate McCrory’s acquisition expenses between the two aspects of these transactions. I am unable to concur in this approach, however…1 / 2
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)