WILLIAM NELSON
v.
JASON MILLER INVESTMENTS, INC., D/ B/ A JAYMAR TRAVEL PARK
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court reversed a trial court's dismissal for improper venue, holding that an evidentiary hearing and discovery were required before ruling on the venue issue. This case clarifies the procedural requirements for challenging venue when the complaint does not definitively establish improper venue on its face.
Yes, the trial court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing and permit discovery on the venue issue. The appellate court held that when a motion to dismiss for improper venue raises factual issues, an evidentiary hearing is necessary unless the complaint itself demonstrates improper venue.
[1] When a defendant moves to dismiss for improper venue, the defendant bears the burden of pleading and proving that venue is improper, and an evidentiary hearing is require…
[2] A trial court may not grant a motion to dismiss for improper venue without an evidentiary hearing merely because the complaint does not affirmatively establish proper ven…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A motion by the defendant to dismiss or transfer on the ground of improper venue raises issues of fact which must be resolved by an evidentiary hearing, unless the complaint shows on its face that venue is improper.”
This quote establishes the core legal principle that an evidentiary hearing is required for venue challenges unless the complaint clearly shows impropriety.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam Nelson sued Jason Miller Investments, Inc. (Jaymar Travel Park) in Pinellas County. The defendant moved to dismiss for improper venue. The tri…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Improper Venue cases and more on FLexlaw
d/b/a JAYMAR TRAVEL PARK and XYZ CO. 1-3,1 No. 2D20-3152 July 2, 2021 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Patricia A. Muscarella, Judge. Bethany L. Schneider of Schneider Injury Law, Atlanta, Georgia; and James A. Robson of Glass & Robson, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellant.1 In his complaint, Nelson indicated that "XYZ Co. 1-3 are fictitious entities that may have shared responsibility" with Jaymar Travel Park for the control and maintenance of the subject premises and that if "any such entity/entities exist, [Nelson] will substitute the legal name of said entity/entities" later.
Accordingly, there is no indication that "XYZ Co. 1-3" in this action refers to anything more than a "placeholder" for an entity or entities that may or may not exist; Nelson has not served "XYZ Co. 1-3" with the underlying complaint, and "XYZ Co. 1-3" has made no appearance in this appeal.
Dyana L. Sisti and Katherine V. Shadwick of Reynolds Parrino Spano & Shadwick P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellee. ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, Judge.
The trial court granted Jason Miller Investments, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for improper venue without conducting an evidentiary hearing and notwithstanding William Nelson's request to conduct discovery on the issue. Although the complaint in this case does not show on its face that venue is proper in Pinellas County, as is alleged, it likewise does not show on its face that venue is improper there.
Accordingly, we reverse. See Interactive Retail Mgmt., Inc. v. Microsoft Online, L.P., 988 So. 2d 717, 720–21 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ("A motion by the defendant to dismiss or transfer on the ground of improper venue raises issues of fact which must be resolved by an evidentiary hearing, unless the complaint shows on its face that venue is improper." (citing Kinetiks.Com, Inc. v. Sweeney, 789 So. 2d 1221, 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001))); see also Inverness Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. McDaniel, 78 So. 2d 100, 102 (Fla. 1955) ("It is of the very nature of venue that the plaintiff selects it initially, but need not plead or prove that his selection has been proper, and the burden of pleading and proving that the venue is improper, if such is the fact, is upon the defendant.").
On remand, the trial court shall permit discovery only on the venue issue until that issue is decided after the evidentiary hearing. See Mkt. Traders Inst., Inc. v. Kent, 300 So. 3d 377, 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).
Reversed; remanded with instructions. LUCAS and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Inverness Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Lottie McDANIEL, 78 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1955)
- Interactive Retail Mgmt., Inc. v. Microsoft Online, L.P., 988 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Mkt. Traders Inst., Inc. v. Kent, 300 So. 3d 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)