EQUIPMENT COMPANY OF AMERICA, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT H. DAVIS, JR., AND RAMPMASTER, INCORPORATED, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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.
Equipment Company of America appealed a trial court's order transferring venue from Dade County to Broward County in a suit against two defendants residing in different counties. The appellate court reversed, holding that under Florida's venue statute, a plaintiff has the right to select any county where a defendant resides, and the trial court cannot transfer the case for convenience once a valid venue is chosen.
The trial court erred in transferring venue because Section 47.021 Fla.Stat. authorizes a plaintiff to bring an action against multiple defendants in any county where any defendant resides, and the plaintiff's selection of an authorized forum cannot be negated by the court for purposes of trial convenience.
“Actions against two (2) or more defendants residing in different counties or districts may be brought in any county or district in which any defendant resides.”
The controlling venue statute that grants plaintiffs the right to select an authorized forum when defendants reside in different counties.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEquipment Company of America, with its place of business in Dade County, filed suit in Dade County Circuit Court against Robert H. Davis, Jr., a Dade …
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
Plaintiff, which has its place of business in Dade County, filed suit in the Circuit *95Court of Dade County against the defendants, Robert H. Davis, Jr., a resident of Dade County and Rampmaster, Incorporated, which has its place of business in Broward County.
The defendants moved for a change of venue and the trial judge entered an order transferring the cause to the Circuit Court of Broward County. It is from this order that plaintiff has taken this interlocutory appeal.
It is appellants’ contention that it was error for the trial court to transfer the action to Broward County, since it appears from the pleadings that the plaintiff has its place of business in Dade County and that one of the defendants, Davis, has admitted that he is a resident of Dade County. We agree with appellant’s contention and reverse.
Section 47.021 Fla.Stat.F.S.A. provides as follows:
“Actions against two (2) or more defendants residing in different counties or districts may be brought in any county or district in which any defendant resides.”
This statute clearly provides that the action may be brought in any county in which any defendant resides. The right to select one of such counties belongs to the plaintiff. If the plaintiff selects any one of the authorized forums, as set forth above in § 47.021, supra, then the court hearing the lawsuit is unauthorized to transfer that action to another jurisdiction for purposes of trial convenience. In the case of Doonan v. Poole, Fla.App. 1959, 114 So.2d 504, the court found that the venue statute here in question, [then § 46.02 (1957)] did not authorize the trial judge to transfer venue for purposes of convenience. The court stated:
“Irrespective of whether it would better serve the purpose of judicial administration to try this case in [the county which was the residence of two of the three defendants], § 46.02 gives the plaintiff the right to elect between [the two defendants’ county of residence] and [the third defendant’s county of residence], and having elected to bring his suit in [the third defendant’s county of residence], the inconvenience of so doing cannot be used as a vehicle upon which to negate the plaintiff’s choice.”
See also Sales v. Berzin, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 23; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Ganey, Fla.App.1961, 125 So.2d 576; Greyhound Corporation v. Rosart, Fla.App.1960, 124 So.2d 708.
For the reasons stated the order appealed is hereby reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coggin Pontiac, Inc. v. Putnam Auto Sales, Inc., 278 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)…and RAWLS, J., concur. . 56 Am.Jur. 38, Venue, § 34. . Permenter v. Bank of Green Cove Springs. (Fla.App.1962) 136 So. 2d 377, 379. . Permenter v. Bank of Green Cove Springs, supra note 2. . Equipment Company of America v. Davis, (Fla.App.1969) 223 So. 2d 94.…
-
Reliable Elec. Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Heller, 382 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…e is clear where the venue privileges of the defendants are co-equal and are not coexistent in the same county. . .” Accord, Coggin Pontiac, Inc. v. Putnam Auto Sales, Inc., 278 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Equipment Company of America v. Davis, 223 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). Accordingly, the judgment below is AFFIRMED. ROBERT P. SMITH and SHAW, JJ., concur. . Counts II and III of the complaint stated the same cause of action against Defendants Acton and McCain respectively.…
-
Barnes v. Barnes, 226 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Equipment Company of America v. Davis, Fla.App. 1969, 223 So. 2d 94. Affirmed. CROSS, C. J., and WALDEN and REED, JJ., concur.…
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
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Ganey, 125 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Greyhound Corp. v. Rosart, 124 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Nancy E. Sales v. Berzin, 212 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- Doonan v. Poole, 114 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)