MGA INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.
v.
NEW VISTA DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING SERVICES, LLC, A/A/O HECTOR YAQUE
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 defendant seeking to transfer venue must show either substantial inconvenience or undue expense, and mere listing of witnesses and their residences without demonstrating the significance of their testimony is insufficient.
[1] When venue is proper in multiple counties, the plaintiff's choice of venue should not be disturbed absent a showing of substantial inconvenience or likelihood of injustic…
[2] To successfully invoke witness convenience as grounds for venue transfer, the moving party must identify specific witnesses, their locations, and the significance of thei…
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“When venue is proper in more than one county, the choice rests with the plaintiff and should not be disturbed without a showing of substantial inconvenience or the likelihood of injustice.”
Standard for challenging plaintiff's venue selection
MGA Insurance Company filed suit against New Vista Diagnostic Imaging Services in Miami-Dade County. New Vista moved to transfer venue to another coun…
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 Plaintiff'S Choice Of Venue cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Port Royal Prop., LLC v. Woodson Elec. Sols., Inc., 305 So. 3d 50, 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“[A] trial court’s ruling on a motion to transfer venue under section 47.122 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”); Taylor v. Dasilva, 401 So. 2d 1161, 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (“When venue is proper in more than one county, the choice rests with the plaintiff and should not be disturbed without a showing of substantial inconvenience or the likelihood of injustice.”) (internal citation omitted); Gov’t Employees Ins. Co. v. Burns, 672 So. 2d 834, 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (“[I]n order to successfully challenge that selection, the burden is upon the defendant to show either substantial inconvenience or that undue expense requires a change for the convenience of the parties or witnesses.”); R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Mooney, 147 So. 3d 42, 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“[I]n order for a court to consider the convenience of the witnesses, the court must know who the witnesses are and the significance of their testimony.” (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Young, 690 So. 2d 1377, 1379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997))); R.C. Storage One, Inc. v. Strand Realty, Inc., 714 So. 2d 634, 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (noting affidavits in support of appellant’s motion to transfer venue were insufficient as they were “little more than a laundry list of witness, their places of residence and the conclusory statement that it would be inconvenient for them to travel to [another county]”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Imperial Paving, LLC v. Trujillo (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…A 2023) (noting that an appellate court generally applies an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a trial court’s order denying motion to dismiss for improper venue or forum non conveniens); Port Royal Prop., LLC v. Woodson Elec. Sols., Inc., 305 So. 3d 50, 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“[A] trial court's ruling on a motion to transfer venue under section 47.122 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”); Huber v. Huber, 314 So. 3d 363, 365 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“However, where there are no material facts in di…
-
Imperial Paving, LLC v. Trujillo (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…A 2023) (noting that an appellate court generally applies an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a trial court’s order denying motion to dismiss for improper venue or forum non conveniens); Port Royal Prop., LLC v. Woodson Elec. Sols., Inc., 305 So. 3d 50, 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“[A] trial court's ruling on a motion to transfer venue under section 47.122 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”); Huber v. Huber, 314 So. 3d 363, 365 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“However, where there are no material facts in di…
Authorities Cited
- Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Young, 690 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Burns, 672 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Lesia Mooney, 147 So. 3d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Taylor v. Dasilva, 401 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)