42
Fla. L. Weekly D944bTop of Form
Fla. L. Weekly D944bTop of Form
Torts
— Product liability — Jurisdiction — Forum non conveniens — Trial court did
not abuse discretion in denying defendant firearms manufacturer’s motion to
dismiss action on the basis of forum non conveniens — There is a presumption
of favor of plaintiff’s initial choice of forum, and choice of forum is
defendant’s headquarters
— Product liability — Jurisdiction — Forum non conveniens — Trial court did
not abuse discretion in denying defendant firearms manufacturer’s motion to
dismiss action on the basis of forum non conveniens — There is a presumption
of favor of plaintiff’s initial choice of forum, and choice of forum is
defendant’s headquarters
TAURUS INTERNATIONAL MANUFACTURING,
INC., et al., Appellants, vs. JASON FRIEND, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No.
3D16-1960. L.T. Case No. 15-25380. Opinion filed April 26, 2017. An Appeal from
a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jerald Bagley,
Judge. Counsel: Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, and Scott S. Gallagher and
Richard D. Rivera (Jacksonville), for appellants. Morris Haynes Wheeles Knowles
& Nelson, and Matthew G. Garmon and M. Todd Wheeles (Birmingham, KY),
Bailey & Glasser LLP, and James L. Kauffman (St. Petersburg) and David L.
Selby, II (Birmingham, KY), for appellee.
INC., et al., Appellants, vs. JASON FRIEND, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No.
3D16-1960. L.T. Case No. 15-25380. Opinion filed April 26, 2017. An Appeal from
a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jerald Bagley,
Judge. Counsel: Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, and Scott S. Gallagher and
Richard D. Rivera (Jacksonville), for appellants. Morris Haynes Wheeles Knowles
& Nelson, and Matthew G. Garmon and M. Todd Wheeles (Birmingham, KY),
Bailey & Glasser LLP, and James L. Kauffman (St. Petersburg) and David L.
Selby, II (Birmingham, KY), for appellee.
(Before ROTHENBERG, LOGUE, and
SCALES, JJ.)
SCALES, JJ.)
(LOGUE, J.) Taurus International
Manufacturing, Inc. and Taurus Holdings, Inc. appeal the trial court’s nonfinal
order denying their motion to dismiss Jason Friend’s products liability claims
on the basis of forum non conveniens. We affirm.
Manufacturing, Inc. and Taurus Holdings, Inc. appeal the trial court’s nonfinal
order denying their motion to dismiss Jason Friend’s products liability claims
on the basis of forum non conveniens. We affirm.
Jason Friend is a police officer and
resident of Kentucky. He was gifted a Taurus semi-automatic pistol that was
purchased in Kentucky in 2008. One day in February 2014, the pistol fell out of
Friend’s holster. When the pistol hit the ground, it fired and discharged a
bullet into Friend’s leg, causing multiple injuries. Friend filed a products
liability action against Taurus in Miami-Dade County — Taurus’ home forum.
Taurus filed a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, arguing that the
action will be fairly and more conveniently litigated in Kentucky. The trial
court denied the motion after a hearing, and this appeal followed.
resident of Kentucky. He was gifted a Taurus semi-automatic pistol that was
purchased in Kentucky in 2008. One day in February 2014, the pistol fell out of
Friend’s holster. When the pistol hit the ground, it fired and discharged a
bullet into Friend’s leg, causing multiple injuries. Friend filed a products
liability action against Taurus in Miami-Dade County — Taurus’ home forum.
Taurus filed a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, arguing that the
action will be fairly and more conveniently litigated in Kentucky. The trial
court denied the motion after a hearing, and this appeal followed.
We conclude that the trial court
acted well within its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061(a), the “decision to grant or deny
the motion for dismissal rests in the sound discretion of the trial court,
subject to review for abuse of discretion.” The rule outlines four factors the
trial court may consider when ruling on a motion to dismiss for forum non
conveniens: (1) whether “an adequate alternate forum exists which possesses
jurisdiction over the whole case, including all of the parties”; (2) whether
“all relevant factors of private interest favor the alternate forum, weighing
in the balance a strong presumption against disturbing plaintiffs’ initial
forum choice”; (3) “if the balance of private interests is at or near
equipoise,” whether “factors of public interest tip the balance in favor of
trial in the alternate forum”; and (4) whether the “plaintiffs can reinstate
their suit in the alternate forum without undue inconvenience or prejudice.”
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.061(a)(1)-(4) (emphasis added); see also Kinney
Sys., Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1996) (adopting
emergency Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061).
acted well within its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061(a), the “decision to grant or deny
the motion for dismissal rests in the sound discretion of the trial court,
subject to review for abuse of discretion.” The rule outlines four factors the
trial court may consider when ruling on a motion to dismiss for forum non
conveniens: (1) whether “an adequate alternate forum exists which possesses
jurisdiction over the whole case, including all of the parties”; (2) whether
“all relevant factors of private interest favor the alternate forum, weighing
in the balance a strong presumption against disturbing plaintiffs’ initial
forum choice”; (3) “if the balance of private interests is at or near
equipoise,” whether “factors of public interest tip the balance in favor of
trial in the alternate forum”; and (4) whether the “plaintiffs can reinstate
their suit in the alternate forum without undue inconvenience or prejudice.”
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.061(a)(1)-(4) (emphasis added); see also Kinney
Sys., Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1996) (adopting
emergency Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061).
Here the trial court did not abuse
its discretion in denying Taurus’ motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens.
Miami-Dade County was plaintiff’s initial forum choice, and it is Taurus’
headquarters where Taurus markets, distributes, and services firearms. As this
court has previously observed, “[a] forum non conveniens argument coming from a
party sued where he resides is both puzzling and strange.” Cardoso v. FPB
Bank, 879 So. 2d 1247, 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (internal quotations
omitted) (affirming denial of motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens in a
case that “involves the exceptional situation in which the defendant has been
sued in his own forum and has objected that his home forum is inconvenient”).
Based on the factors outlined in Rule 1.061 and Kinney, we cannot
conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the
defendants here failed to meet their high burden of proof for dismissal on the
ground of forum non conveniens. Accordingly, we affirm.
its discretion in denying Taurus’ motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens.
Miami-Dade County was plaintiff’s initial forum choice, and it is Taurus’
headquarters where Taurus markets, distributes, and services firearms. As this
court has previously observed, “[a] forum non conveniens argument coming from a
party sued where he resides is both puzzling and strange.” Cardoso v. FPB
Bank, 879 So. 2d 1247, 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (internal quotations
omitted) (affirming denial of motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens in a
case that “involves the exceptional situation in which the defendant has been
sued in his own forum and has objected that his home forum is inconvenient”).
Based on the factors outlined in Rule 1.061 and Kinney, we cannot
conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the
defendants here failed to meet their high burden of proof for dismissal on the
ground of forum non conveniens. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
* * *