Cellnet 7, Inc. v. Lainez
215 So. 3d 137
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Cellnet 7, Inc. and Celltech 7, Inc. (Florida corporations) sued Honduran resident Adolfo Lainez for conversion and unjust enrichment based on alleged improper returns/retention of goods and commissions related to Honduran distributors (Distelsa and IDT).
- The asserted facts span 2006–2011; Cellnet alleged credit memos and missing returned merchandise valued in excess of $200,000 and commissions paid to Lainez.
- Lainez moved to dismiss on grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and statute of limitations; he submitted an affidavit stating he lives and transacted in Honduras, is amenable to Honduran process, will waive jurisdictional defenses there, and will accept the Florida filing date for statute-of-limitations purposes.
- At a non‑evidentiary hearing the trial court granted dismissal on forum non conveniens; Cellnet appealed.
- The district court reviewed for abuse of discretion and found reversible error because Lainez failed to carry his burden to show Honduras is an adequate alternative forum and the trial court did not properly assess private‑interest factors favoring the plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly dismissed under forum non conveniens | Cellnet argued dismissal was improper because defendant failed to prove Honduras is an adequate forum and plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to a strong presumption | Lainez argued Honduras is the proper, adequate forum; submitted affidavit of amenability and willingness to waive defenses there | Reversed: defendant failed to prove adequacy of Honduran forum; trial court also failed to weigh private‑interest factors favoring plaintiff |
| What proof is required to show an alternative foreign forum is adequate | Cellnet argued evidence is required — attorney affidavits or other proof about foreign courts’ ability to adjudicate/enforce claims | Lainez relied on his own affidavit regarding amenability and waiver but offered no local counsel affidavit or evidence about Honduran courts | Held: Adequacy requires more than defendant’s unilateral promises; evidence (e.g., Honduran counsel affidavit or testimony) is required and was lacking |
| Whether trial court applied presumption in favor of plaintiff’s chosen forum | Cellnet relied on presumption because plaintiff is Florida corporation and there was evidence Lainez has a South Florida home | Lainez argued private‑interest burdens on him justified dismissal | Held: Trial court failed to analyze private‑interest factors and displaced the presumption in favor of Cellnet’s chosen forum |
| Whether remand should allow defendant to cure evidentiary defects | Cellnet argued defendant shouldn’t get a second chance to prove adequacy | Lainez implicitly sought dismissal now; court assessed whether remand for further proof was appropriate | Held: Court reversed and ordered reinstatement of complaint; defendant does not get another chance to cure the evidentiary shortfall on the dismissed motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1996) (framework and standards for forum non conveniens analysis)
- Cortez v. Palace Resorts, Inc., 123 So. 3d 1085 (Fla. 2013) (alternative forum inadequacy when it cannot litigate the subject matter)
- Hilton International Co. v. Carrillo, 971 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (forum inadequate if grossly inefficient or extremely partial)
- Leon v. Millon Air, Inc., 251 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2001) (forum non conveniens principles regarding adequacy and fairness of alternative forum)
- Abeid-Saba v. Carnival Corp., 184 So. 3d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (standard of review for forum non conveniens dismissal)
- Telemundo Network Group, LLC v. Azteca International Corp., 957 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (burden on movant to show adequacy and availability of alternative forum)
- Persinger v. Estate of Tibbetts, 727 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (failure to prove an element at hearing ordinarily does not entitle movant to a new hearing to cure the defect)