Toward a More “Convenient” Standard of Review in Cases Involving Forum Non Conveniens Issues

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The January 2010 edition of the Florida Bar Journal discusses the forum non conveniens doctrine in an article by attorneys Alina Alonso and David Luck.  The article provides an excellent explanation of Rule 1.061(a), Fla. R. Civ. Pro., and how Florida came to adopt the Federal analysis of forum non conveniens issues.  As the article explains, Federal Courts have adopted a four prong analysis:

1) At the outset, does an available and adequate alternative forum exist that possesses jurisdiction over the parties and may resolve the dispute? 2) Do the private interests of the litigants favor one forum or another? 3) Do the public interests associated with each forum favor one over the other? And 4) If the alternative forum is more appropriate and convenient, may the plaintiff reinstate the claim there?

This test has been adopted by the Florida Supreme Court in Kinney Sys., Inc. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1996) and codified in Rule 1.061(a).

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Toward a More “Convenient” Standard of Review in Cases Involving Forum Non Conveniens Issues.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://reporter.floridacivpro.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/179

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Brian Willis published on January 10, 2010 9:53 AM.

Hess Corp. v. Denise Grillasca & Kelly Mayzik, 34 Fla. L. Wkly D2629b (Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 23, 2009) was the previous entry in this blog.

Randy Cohen v. Sonia Aponte, 35 Fla. L. Wkly D137c (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 6, 2010) is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.01