Luptak v. Kutchins

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Luptak v. Kutchins

768 So. 2d 1196, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 11916, 2000 WL 1345924

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 20, 2000

DocketNo. 4D99-3478

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 768 So. 2d 1196 (Luptak v. Kutchins) 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

Luptak v. Kutchins, 768 So. 2d 1196, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 11916, 2000 WL 1345924 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of appellant’s complaint on forum non conve-niens grounds pursuant to rule 1.061(a) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Appellant filed a complaint asserting that statements made in a brief filed in a Michigan court, in connection with Michigan litigation between appellant and appellee, were libelous. While both appellant and appellee are part-time residents of Florida, all of the matters relating to the cause of action occurred in Michigan. The private interest factors enumerated in Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., [1197]*1197674 So.2d 86 (Fla.1996), all weigh in favor of dismissal. See also Ciba-Geigy Ltd. v. Fish Peddler, Inc., 691 So.2d 1111, 1118 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 699 So.2d 1372 (Fla.1997). We will not disturb the trial court’s discretionary decision, particularly in light of the fact that appellant filed the same action in Michigan, which has already been dismissed on the merits. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.061(a)(“The decision to grant or deny the motion for dismissal rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, subject to review for abuse of discretion.”).

WARNER, C.J., GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of appellant’s complaint on forum non conve-niens grounds pursuant to rule 1.061(a) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Appellant filed a complaint asserting that statements made in a brief filed in a Michigan court, in connection with Michigan litigation between appellant and appellee, were libelous. While both appellant and appellee are part-time residents of Florida, all of the matters relating to the cause of action occurred in Michigan. The private interest factors enumerated in Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., [1197]*1197674 So.2d 86 (Fla.1996), all weigh in favor of dismissal. See also Ciba-Geigy Ltd. v. Fish Peddler, Inc., 691 So.2d 1111, 1118 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 699 So.2d 1372 (Fla.1997). We will not disturb the trial court’s discretionary decision, particularly in light of the fact that appellant filed the same action in Michigan, which has already been dismissed on the merits. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.061(a)(“The decision to grant or deny the motion for dismissal rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, subject to review for abuse of discretion.”).

WARNER, C.J., GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

768 So. 2d 1196, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 11916, 2000 WL 1345924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luptak-v-kutchins-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack