FLOTA MERCANTE GRAN CENTROAMERICANA, A GUATEMALAN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
STENA SHIPPING AB, A SWEDISH CORPORATION, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed denial of forum non conveniens dismissal where two foreign corporations sued over a contract made in Guatemala to be performed in Sweden, with no connection to Florida.
A court should dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds when the action involves two foreign corporations, no Florida contacts, and all parties and witnesses reside outside Florida.
[1] Forum non conveniens dismissal is appropriate when the action involves foreign corporations with no authorization to do business in Florida, causes of action not arising…
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 intelligenceFlota Mercante Gran Centroamericana, a Guatemalan corporation, sued Stena Shipping AB, a Swedish corporation, on three causes of action arising from a…
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 Contract Dispute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal filed under Rule 4.2 FAR, 32 F.S.A. from an interlocutory order at law relating to venue, by which the court denied a motion of the defendant for dismissal on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. We find error and reverse, on authority of Hagen v. Viney, 124 Fla. 747, 169 So. 391, and Southern Railway Compa ny v. McCubbins, Fla.App.1967, 196 So. 2d 512.
The action is between two foreign corporations, neither of which is alleged to be authorized to do business in Florida, on three causes of action, none of which arose in Florida, based upon a contract that was entered into in Guatemala, to be performed in Sweden. In addition to those facts it was made to appear that the laws of Florida are not involved in the controversy, and the parties and other individuals affected and the prospective witnesses all reside outside of Florida, with the latter not amenable to Florida process. Without attempting further to outline the factors bearing on the inconvenience of Florida as the forum for the trial of this case, we have concluded that a sufficiently strong showing for application of the doctrine of non conveniens was made here, so that the denial of the defendant’s motion was error. The order is reversed, and the cause is remanded with direction to enter an order dismissing the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens, without prejudice.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hagen v. Viney, 124 Fla. 747 (Fla. 1936)
- S. Ry. Co. v. McCUBBINS, 196 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)