A.D.M. Productions, Inc. v. Solomon

847 So. 2d 1139, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 9408, 2003 WL 21459626
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in A.D.M. Productions, Inc. v. Solomon. Read the opinion of the Court — 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 17563
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 25, 2003·No. No. 3D03-701·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to our previous mandate in A.D.M. Prods., Inc. v. Solomon, 831 So.2d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), the trial court conducted a Kinney1 hearing on the appellant’s motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens and denied the same. On this appeal, on the record before us, we cannot find that the denial of the motion was an abuse of discretion. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.061(a); Ira Mex, Inc. v. Southeastern Interior Constr., Inc., 777 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (decision to grant or deny motion to dismiss from inconvenient forum rests in sound discretion of trial court, subject to review for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm the same.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

A.D.M. Productions, Inc. v. Solomon, 847 So. 2d 1139, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 9408, 2003 WL 21459626 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

847 So. 2d 1139 (A.D.M. Productions, Inc. v. Solomon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ira Mex v. Southeastern Interior Const.
777 So. 2d 1107 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co.
674 So. 2d 86 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1996)
A.D.M. Productions, Inc. v. Solomon
831 So. 2d 259 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)