119 So. 3d 1280
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellants (S2 Global, Rapiscan, S2 Services PR) sued in Palm Beach County, Florida seeking declaratory relief and fraud damages relating to a teaming agreement (filed May 7, 2010); defendants were served by June 11, 2010.
- Appellees (Tactical Operational Support Services, LLC and its PR affiliate) filed a separate suit in Puerto Rico in January 2012 asserting claims under Puerto Rico Law 21; that Puerto Rico suit was dismissed without prejudice on March 5, 2012.
- Appellees moved to dismiss the Florida action for forum non conveniens under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.061 on May 4, 2012 — more than 20 months after service and well beyond the 60‑day deadline in rule 1.061(g).
- Appellees acknowledged the motion was untimely but argued excusable neglect, supporting that claim with an affidavit asserting strategic decisions and reliance on counsel (including filing the Puerto Rico suit).
- The trial court found excusable neglect, applied the Kinney factors, granted dismissal, and appellants appealed.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the 60‑day rule is unambiguous, appellees’ motion was untimely, and the proffered justifications were tactical choices—not excusable neglect—so the dismissal was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Rule 1.061 motion filed after 60 days is barred absent excusable neglect | 1.061(g) time limit is mandatory; untimely motion should be denied | 1.061(g) deadline can be excused for excusable neglect under Rule 1.090(b) | The 60‑day limit is mandatory; late motion requires excusable neglect to be considered |
| Whether appellees demonstrated excusable neglect for filing motion >20 months late | Motion was timely effectively because appellees pursued parallel PR litigation and relied on counsel | Appellees argue strategic decisions and filing in PR justified delay | Appellees failed to show excusable neglect; tactical choices and litigation strategy do not qualify |
| Whether the trial court properly granted forum non conveniens dismissal after finding excusable neglect | Court applied Kinney factors and found dismissal appropriate | Appellants argued dismissal should not proceed because the motion itself was untimely and unjustified | Because excusable neglect was not shown, the dismissal was an abuse of discretion and was reversed |
| Standard of review for Rule 1.061 dismissal | N/A | N/A | Forum non conveniens rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion, but interpretation of procedural rules reviewed de novo; here rule interpretation controlled outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinney Sys., Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 674 So.2d 86 (Fla. 1996) (adopted the Rule 1.061 framework and articulated the Kinney factors for forum non conveniens)
- Ira Mex, Inc. v. Se. Interior Constr., Inc., 777 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (forum non conveniens dismissal reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- R.T.G. Furniture Corp. v. Coates, 93 So.3d 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (rule interpretation is reviewed de novo; clear rule language controls)
- Giron v. Fairways of Sunrise Homeowners’ Ass’n, 903 So.2d 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (examples of excusable neglect based on administrative or calendaring errors)
- Geer v. Jacobsen, 880 So.2d 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (strategic litigation decisions and judgment calls do not constitute excusable neglect)