TEXAS GULF SULPHUR COMPANY, INC., A TEXAS CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DOWNTOWN INVESTMENT COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
Texas Gulf Sulphur Company appeals the denial of its motion to dismiss an action on forum non conveniens grounds in Florida. The court holds that while forum non conveniens is a recognized doctrine in federal courts, Florida has no comparable statute authorizing dismissal based on inconvenience, and a plaintiff's statutory right to choose a proper venue cannot be overridden by judicial preference for another forum.
A Florida court cannot dismiss an action on forum non conveniens grounds because Florida has no comparative statute authorizing such dismissals. Where a plaintiff properly commences an action in a venue authorized by Florida statute, the court may not override the plaintiff's statutory right to select that forum based on the court's judgment that another forum would be more convenient.
“The right thus granted may not be withdrawn through judicial action on the ground that a different forum might better suit the convenience of the defendant.”
Establishes the core principle that a plaintiff's statutory right to choose proper venue cannot be overridden by judicial convenience considerations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTexas Gulf Sulphur Company (defendant) filed a motion to dismiss an action properly brought in Florida, arguing that the litigation could be more 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 Venue Statute Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant brings this interlocutory appeal seeking review and quashal of an order denying its motion to dismiss the action for the convenience of the parties and witnesses in the interest of justice, without prejudice to the right of plaintiff to reinstitute and prosecute its action in the state or federal courts in New York having jurisdiction. The theory of the motion is grounded upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens which authorizes the dismissal of actions in those cases where it is made to appear that they may be more conveniently litigated in another forum. Such a practice is authorized with respect to civil actions instituted in the United States District Courts of this country, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. A. § 1404(a). We have no comparable statute in Florida.
No question is raised with respect to the correctness of the venue selected by plaintiff for the institution of this action. The Florida venue statute specifies the forums in which an action may be commenced,1 and grants to the plaintiff the right to select the forum within the limitations specified. The right thus granted may not be withdrawn through judicial action on the ground that a different forum might better suit the convenience of the defendant. We agree with the principle stated by Judge Tillman Pearson, speaking for the Third District Court of Appeal in the case of Touchton v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company,2 as follows:
“The appellee urges that the doctrine of forum non conveniens arises out of the court’s inherent right to protect itself from actions inadvisably brought far from the residence of the plaintiff and the witness. We must reject that theory because where the legislature provides that an action may be brought in a certain court, that court may not impose its will as to venue in order to force a plaintiff to accept another forum for the action which *21ttle courts conceive to be better than one specified by the legislature.”
In Touchton the trial court dismissed the .action properly commenced in Dade County because Alachua County where the plaintiff was injured was a more convenient forum in which to maintain the litigation. It was this order which was reversed on appeal. We are of the view that the principle followed in that decision is equally applicable to actions properly brought in Florida where it is made to appear that a more convenient forum may be found in another state.
Our review of the record in the case sub judice fails to demonstrate that in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss the cause of action, the trial court either abused its discretion or departed from the essential requirements of law. This interlocutory appeal is accordingly dismissed.
RAWLS, C. J., and WIGGINTON, and •CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yewell Adams v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 224 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)…s v. National City Lines, 334 U.S. 573, 68 S.Ct. 1169, 1171, 92 L. Ed. 1584. . Pope v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 345 U.S. 379, 73 S.Ct. 749, 97 L.Ed. 1094. . Texas Gulf Sulphur Company, Inc., v. Downtown Investment Company, (Fla. App.1966) 188 So. 2d 19; Touchton v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, (Fla.App.1963) 155 So. 2d 738; Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Ganey, (Fla.App.1960) 125 So. 2d 576. . Greyhound Corporation v. Rosart, (Fla. App.1960) 124 So. 2d 708, 712. . Hagen v. Vi…
-
Tex. Gulf Sulphur Co., Inc. v. Downtown Inv. Co., 196 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 1967)…PER CURIAM. We issued a writ of certiorari because of •an apparent conflict between the decision of the District Court of Appeal, 188 So. 2d 19 in the instant case and decisions of other District Courts of Appeal on the same point of law. After a careful study of the record in light of the briefs and oral argument, we have concluded that the writ was improvidently issued and must, therefore…
-
Autry v. Seaboard Coast Line R. R. Co., 32 Fla. Supp. 53 (Duval Cty. Cir. Ct. 1968)…Jacksonville rather than Miami should be chosen as [*54] the place to sue, if suit is to be brought in Florida, entirely escapes this court. This is not a situation like that dealt with in Texas Gulf Sulphur Company v. Downtown Investment Company, 188 So. 2d 19 (D.C.A. 1, Fla., 1966), certiorari dismissed 196 So. 2d 436 (S.C. Fla., 1967). In that case, the plaintiff had its principal office in Jacksonville, and part of the evidence was in Jacksonville, so it appeared to the undersigned judge that Jacksonvi…
Authorities Cited
- Alva J. Touchton v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 155 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)