Davis v. Starfish Ventures Ltd.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Davis v. Starfish Ventures Ltd.

870 So. 2d 918, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5464, 2004 WL 840251

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 21, 2004

DocketNo. 3D03-2538

StatusPublished

This text of 870 So. 2d 918 (Davis v. Starfish Ventures Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. Starfish Ventures Ltd., 870 So. 2d 918, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5464, 2004 WL 840251 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Billy Wayne Davis, Newport Harbour Limited and E. Dawson Roberts appeal an order denying their motion to dismiss on the basis, inter alia, of the statute of limitations and the economic loss rule. We dismiss that part of the appeal as being from a non-final, non-appealable order. See Couture Farms v. Triton International, Inc., 682 So.2d 578, 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).

The appellants appeal the trial court’s order denying the motion to dismiss based on a claim of improper venue, which was treated as a motion to dismiss for lack of long-arm jurisdiction. The appellants also appeal the order denying their motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061, the forum non conveniens rule. See generally Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(A), (C)(i). We find no error and affirm. See Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499, 502 (Fla.1989); § 48.193(1)(b), Fla. Stat.

Affirmed in part; appeal dismissed in part.

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

PER CURIAM.

Billy Wayne Davis, Newport Harbour Limited and E. Dawson Roberts appeal an order denying their motion to dismiss on the basis, inter alia, of the statute of limitations and the economic loss rule. We dismiss that part of the appeal as being from a non-final, non-appealable order. See Couture Farms v. Triton International, Inc., 682 So.2d 578, 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).

The appellants appeal the trial court’s order denying the motion to dismiss based on a claim of improper venue, which was treated as a motion to dismiss for lack of long-arm jurisdiction. The appellants also appeal the order denying their motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061, the forum non conveniens rule. See generally Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(A), (C)(i). We find no error and affirm. See Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499, 502 (Fla.1989); § 48.193(1)(b), Fla. Stat.

Affirmed in part; appeal dismissed in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

870 So. 2d 918, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5464, 2004 WL 840251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-starfish-ventures-ltd-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack