100 So. 3d 236
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Ciceros sued American K-9 in Orange County, Florida for breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and loss of consortium after an Afghan-duty incident.
- The employment contract provides Florida law and exclusive jurisdiction in Florida courts, with consent to personal jurisdiction in Central Florida.
- Ciceros argued the contract’s language constitutes a permissive forum selection clause rather than a consent-to-jurisdiction clause.
- American K-9 moved to dismiss for improper venue, arguing venue should be Seminole County under Florida statutes.
- The trial court denied the motion; the appellate court affirmed, applying de novo review and concluding the clause is a permissive forum selection clause making Orange County proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the clause is a permissive forum selection clause. | Ciceros argues the language expresses consent to forum in Central Florida. | American K-9 argues it is a consent-to-jurisdiction clause, not a forum selection clause. | Clause is permissive; venue in Orange County is proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Golden Palm Hospitality, Inc. v. Stearns Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 874 So.2d 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (enforces forum selection clauses that are unambiguous)
- Am. Boxing & Athletic Ass’n v. Young, 911 So.2d 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (consent to jurisdiction can signal a permissive venue provision)
- Young, 911 So.2d 864 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (example of interpreting jurisdiction-related language as forum selection)
- Weisser v. PNC Bank, N.A., 967 So.2d 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (de novo review standard for contract interpretation)
- Celistics, LLC v. Gonzalez, 22 So.3d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (permissive vs. mandatory forum selection guidance)