Vasallo Tome v. Herrera-Zenil
273 So. 3d 140
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- Defendants (Vasallo, Cine Nostalgia, Cine Estelar) appealed a non-final order denying their Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061 motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds.
- The trial court entered an unelaborated written order denying the motion “for the reasons stated in the record.”
- Defendants supported their motion with affidavits asserting forum non conveniens; the hearing transcript did not reflect the court’s consideration of the Kinney factors.
- Appellants argued the trial court failed to perform the Kinney Systems analysis required by rule 1.061 and precedent.
- Appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion and found the written order and transcript lacked meaningful Kinney-factor analysis, but held an evidentiary hearing was not mandatory where affidavits were submitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court performed required Kinney factors analysis under rule 1.061 | Trial court satisfied its duty and denial should stand | Trial court failed to address each Kinney factor in writing or on the record | Reversed and remanded for articulation of findings on each Kinney factor |
| Whether an evidentiary (live testimony) hearing was required to resolve affidavit conflicts | Live testimony necessary to resolve factual disputes | Affidavits can be decisive; no hearing required as a matter of course | No, court may decide on affidavits; evidentiary hearing not required though permissible on remand |
| Whether appellate court should conduct de novo review given the record | Appellate de novo review appropriate because trial court failed to exercise discretion | Appellate court should defer and remand for trial court findings | Declined to perform de novo review; remanded for trial court to articulate Kinney analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinney Sys., Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1996) (establishes the multi-factor forum non conveniens analysis codified in rule 1.061)
- Rolls-Royce, Inc. v. Garcia, 77 So. 3d 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (standard of review and precedent that affidavits may suffice)
- Camperos v. Estrella, 126 So. 3d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (trial court must articulate Kinney factors in order or on the record)
- Levinson & Lichtman, LLP v. Levinson, 35 So. 3d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (abuse of discretion where neither order nor transcript shows Kinney analysis)
- Woods v. Nova Cos. Belize Ltd., 739 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (appellate deference lessened when record mirrors what trial court had)
- Ciba-Geigy Ltd. v. Fish Peddler, Inc., 691 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (explains limits of appellate review when trial court findings rest on affidavits)
- Bridgestone/Firestone N. Am. Tire, LLC v. Garcia, 991 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (discusses deference to trial court balancing of Kinney factors)
- Ryder Sys., Inc. v. Davis, 997 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (recognizes limited circumstances allowing appellate de novo review if trial court failed to address one or more Kinney factors)