Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

916 So. 2d 1013

Docket No. 4D05-2013.

Charles v. McMahon

Josaphat CHARLES, Appellant, v. Bryan McMAHON and Heidi McMahon, Appellees.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 4, 2006.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2006-01-04

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 2009

3 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Rule 1.061(a) provides that an action may be dismissed on the grounds that relief can be sought in a more convenient forum if: (1) the trial court finds that an adequate alternate forum exists which possesses jurisdiction over the whole case, including all of the parties; (2) the trial court finds that all relevant factors of private interest favor the alternate forum, weighing in the balance a strong presumption against disturbing plaintiffs' initial forum choice; (3) if the balance of private interests is at or near equipoise, the court further finds that factors of public interest tip the balance in favor of trial in the alternate forum; and (4) the trial judge ensures that plaintiffs can reinstate their suit in the alternate forum without undue inconvenience or prejudice.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 949 So. 2d 297 - TRW AUTOMOTIVE US LLC v. Papandopoles

“because the trial court did not engage in [ Kinney ] analysis, either at the hearing or in its written order of dismissal,”

quoted by 1 later decision, including RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Carter

Relies on 674 So. 2d 86 - Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co. · 720 So. 2d 552 - Value Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Harbert

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2006-01-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*1014 Bonita K. Brown of Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A., Tampa, and Robert Geisler of Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

¶2David A. Hoines of Hoines & Rose, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4The defendant/appellant appeals an order denying his motion to dismiss this automobile negligence case on forum non conveniens grounds. Although he is a resident of Florida, the plaintiffs are residents of Washington State, and the accident occurred in Nebraska. The appellant moved to dismiss under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061, which requires the trial court to engage in the analysis elaborated in Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co.,674 So.2d 86 (Fla.1996). We reverse because the trial court did not engage in this analysis, either at the hearing or in its written order of denial.[1]

¶5It appears that the court's only basis for denying the motion was the general presumption in favor of plaintiff's choice of forum. In Value Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Harbert,720 So.2d 552, 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), this court explained, "Although the federal doctrine of forum non conveniens adopted in Kinney, and rule 1.061(a)(2) provide that there is a `strong presumption against disturbing plaintiffs' initial forum choice,' that presumption is inapplicable where a plaintiff has selected a foreign forum which is not convenient to the plaintiff." (Citations omitted). We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings on the motion to dismiss consistent with this opinion.

¶6STEVENSON, C.J., WARNER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

NOTES

¶7[1] In the second of two hearings on this motion, the trial court may have been misled by the lawyers into thinking that it had performed the Kinney analysis in the first hearing, but that was not the case.

/916/so2d/1013 · .json · Public domain