Magdalena v. Toyota Motor Corp.
253 So. 3d 24
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs sued multiple Toyota entities in Miami‑Dade County; Toyota moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds.
- Trial court granted Toyota’s forum non conveniens motion, conditioning dismissal on Toyota not contesting jurisdiction or certain defenses if case refiled in Panama or Japan; plaintiffs refiled in Panama against Toyota.
- Toyota moved to tax costs under Fla. Stat. § 57.041 and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.525 as the "prevailing party."
- Trial court awarded Toyota costs and entered a final judgment fixing the amount; plaintiffs appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and reversed, holding that a forum non conveniens dismissal is not a judgment on the merits and does not make Toyota the prevailing party for purposes of awarding costs under § 57.041.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a dismissal for forum non conveniens permits recovery of costs under Fla. Stat. § 57.041 | § 57.041 requires a party "recovering judgment"; no judgment here because merits unresolved | A dismissal in defendant's favor on forum grounds shows the defendant prevailed and so is entitled to costs | Reversed: § 57.041 applies only to a party "recovering judgment;" forum non conveniens dismissal is not a judgment on the merits, so costs under § 57.041 are not allowed at this stage |
| Whether a forum non conveniens dismissal makes the defendant the "prevailing party" entitled to costs | Plaintiffs: defendant is not a prevailing party because merits unresolved and plaintiff may refile; determining prevailing party must await final resolution | Toyota: winning the forum dispute means it prevailed on a significant issue and may recover costs as prevailing party | Reversed: defendant is not necessarily the prevailing party after forum non conveniens dismissal; entitlement to prevailing‑party costs is premature until final judgment resolves who prevailed on significant issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolfe v. Culpepper Constructors, Inc., 104 So. 3d 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (questioning applicability of "prevailing party" standard under § 57.041)
- Bessey v. Difilippo, 951 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (holding "prevailing party" is not the statutory standard for costs awards under § 57.041)
- Granoff v. Seidle, 915 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (applying prevailing‑party standard to § 57.041)
- Do v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 137 So. 3d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (dismissing for lack of prosecution is not a judgment for fee‑entitlement statutes requiring rendition of judgment)
- Dattner v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 458 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2006) (forum non conveniens dismissal does not make defendant a prevailing party because plaintiff may pursue claims abroad)
- United States ex rel. Grynberg v. Praxair, Inc., 389 F.3d 1038 (10th Cir. 2004) (contrasting case where dismissal barred further claims and defendant was prevailing party)
- Szabo Food Serv., Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073 (7th Cir. 1987) (dismissal without prejudice does not render defendant prevailing because the defendant remains at risk)
- Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1992) (prevailing party is the one prevailing on significant issues at conclusion of entire case)