SUPERIOR HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, APPELLANT,
v.
PACIFIC GATEWAY CONCESSIONS, LLC, APPELLEE
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.
Superior Hospitality Management appealed the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss or stay on grounds of forum non conveniens. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court's order lacked meaningful analysis and did not clearly show application of the required four-step Kinney test.
The trial court's order denying the motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens must be reversed and remanded because it either failed to hold a hearing or failed to provide meaningful written analysis demonstrating application of the required Kinney four-step analysis.
[1] An order denying a motion to dismiss or stay on grounds of forum non conveniens must be reversed and remanded if the trial court fails to hold a hearing or provide an ord…
[2] A trial court must engage in the substantive four-step analysis required by Kinney System, Inc. …
Previewing 2 of 3 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“an order on a motion to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens is 'subject to reversal and remand as insufficient where, as here, there is neither (1) 'meaningful analysis' in the order, nor (2) a transcript reflecting 'an adequate analysis of the Kinney factors during the hearing itself'”
Establishes the standard for reviewing forum non conveniens orders and what constitutes sufficient analysis on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSuperior Hospitality Management filed a motion to dismiss or stay proceedings on grounds of forum non conveniens in a dispute with Pacific Gateway Con…
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 Forum Non Conveniens cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Superior Hospitality Management, LLC, appeals the order denying its Motion to Dismiss or Stay on Grounds of Forum Non Conveniens.1 A hearing on the motion was not held, so we do not have a transcript to review. Moreover, the order does not reveal whether the trial court engaged in the substantive four-step analysis as mandated in Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 674 So.2d 86 (Fla.1996), and rule 1.061(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. We, therefore, reverse the order under review and remand this case to the trial court to either hold a hearing or render an order showing that the trial court applied the analysis under Kinney and rule 1.061(a). See Camperos v. Estrella, - So.3d -, -, 2013 WL 1629255, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D855, D855 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 17, 2013) (stating that *212an order on a motion to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens is “subject to reversal and remand as insufficient where, as here, there is neither (1) ‘meaningful analysis’ in the order, nor (2) a transcript reflecting ‘an adequate analysis of the Kinney factors during the hearing itself (quoting ABA Capital Mkts. Corp. v. Provincial De Reaseguros C.A., 101 So.3d 385, 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012))); Levinson & Lichtman, LLP v. Levinson, 35 So.3d 182, 182-83 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Wood v. Bluestone, 9 So.3d 671, 673-74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Carenza v. Sun Int’l Hotels, Ltd., 699 So.2d 830, 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“Neither the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion nor its pronouncements during the hearing on the motion provide this court with enough information to determine whether the trial judge adequately considered each step of the Kinney test in reaching his conclusion.”).
REVERSED; REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SAWAYA and BERGER, JJ., concur.
GRIFFIN, J., dissents, with opinion.
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because, in my view, the motion and supporting documents are legally insufficient for a Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 674 So.2d 86 (Fla.1996), analysis to be made.
GRIFFIN, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because, in my view, the motion and supporting documents are legally insufficient for a Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla.1996), analysis to be made.
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)
- Carenza v. SUN Int'l Hotels, Ltd., 699 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Wood v. Bluestone, 9 So. 3d 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- ABA Cap. Mkts. Corp. v. Provincial de Reaseguros C.A., 101 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Levinson & Lichtman, LLP v. Levinson, 35 So. 3d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)