MARTA DE LEON
v.
FIORDALIZA BUSTAMANTE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2025-01-02
No. 3D2023-1911
2025 FL 51 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2025)

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.


Holding

An anti-suit injunction is properly issued against a party who initiates litigation in violation of an executed forum selection clause designating Miami-Dade County, Florida as the exclusive venue for disputes.


Headnotes

[1] An anti-suit injunction may be issued to enforce an executed forum selection clause requiring disputes be brought in a designated jurisdiction.

Previewing 1 of 1 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

Facts & Procedural History

Marta De Leon and Fiordaliza Bustamante executed an agreement containing a forum selection clause requiring that any litigation between them be brough…

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.


Opinion of the Court

Opinion filed January 2, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1911 Lower Tribunal No. 23-15265

________________

Marta De Leon,

Appellant,

vs.

Fiordaliza Bustamante,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge. Pomeranz & Associates, P.A., and Mark L. Pomeranz (Hallandale), for appellant. Legon, Fodiman & Sudduth, P.A., and William F. Rhodes, for appellee. Before LINDSEY, BOKOR and GOODEN, JJ. PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See United Brands, S.A. v. Diageo Dominicana, S.R.L., 209

So. 3d 67, 68–9 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (affirming the issuance of an anti-suit injunction against the defendant who initiated litigation against the plaintiff in the Dominican Republic despite an agreement executed by the parties which stated that litigation may only be brought in Miami-Dade County, Florida);

see also Rich v. Narog, 366 So. 3d 1111, 1118 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“Specifically, it is incumbent upon the nonmoving party to come forward with evidentiary material demonstrating that a genuine issue of fact exists as to an element necessary for the non-movant to prevail at trial.”).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw