ADA VIOLETA ARAUJO DEJO, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MANUEL AQUILES ARAUJO YECGUANCHUY, APPELLANT,
v.
PHILIP MORRIS, INC., THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE, INC., AND THE COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO RESEARCH-USA, F/K/A THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE RESEARCH COMMITTEE, APPELLEES
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 court affirmed the trial court's dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds, but clarified that the plaintiff can reinstate the suit in Virginia as stipulated.
Plaintiff appealed the trial court's dismissal of the case with prejudice. The trial court dismissed the case on forum non conveniens grounds.…
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 Stipulation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
We grant the Motion for Clarification; withdraw dur opinion of February 26, 2003; and substitute the following opinion in its stead.
Plaintiff appeals the granting of the defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice. We affirm.
The record and order in this case have provided us with sufficient information to determine that the trial court properly dismissed this case on forum non conveniens grounds. See Kinney Sys., Inc. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla.1996). See, e.g., Bacardi v. De Lindzon, 728 So. 2d 309, 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (stating that: “[n]o bright-line rule exists to mandate reversal of the order and remand when the trial court fails to delineate its reasoning as to each step in the Kinney analysis.”). See also Sun & Sea Estates, Ltd., Inc. v. Kelly, 707 So. 2d 863, 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (appellate court, where trial court had failed to perform the Kinney analysis, reviewed record before it, and concluded that case be dismissed for forum non conve-niens.).
The court, however, failed to “ensure” that plaintiff can reinstate her suit in Virginia as the parties have stipulated. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.061.1 Without reaching the merits of Plaintiffs complaint, we rule that this case may be reinstated in Virginia pursuant to the terms of the Defendants’ Stipulation in Support of Their Alternative Motion to Dismiss on the Basis of Forum Non Conveniens, Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.061(a).
Affirmed.
. This rule provides in pertinent part that:
(a) Grounds for Dismissal. An action may be dismissed on the ground that a satisfactory remedy may be more conveniently sought in a jurisdiction other than Florida when:
(4) the trial judge ensures that plaintiffs can reinstate their suit in the alternate forum without undue inconvenience or prejudice.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kinney Sys., Inc. v. The Cont'l Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1996)
- Elena Laura Pessino Gomez Del Campo Bacardi v. Elena Gomez Del Campo Bacardi De Lindzon, 728 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- SUN & SEA Ests., Ltd., Inc. v. Kelly, 707 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)