Superior Hospitality Management, LLC v. Pacific Gateway Concessions, LLC

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Superior Hospitality Management, LLC v. Pacific Gateway Concessions, LLC

120 So. 3d 211, 2013 WL 4482979, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 13454

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 23, 2013

DocketNo. 5D12-4925

StatusPublished

This text of 120 So. 3d 211 (Superior Hospitality Management, LLC v. Pacific Gateway Concessions, LLC) 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

Superior Hospitality Management, LLC v. Pacific Gateway Concessions, LLC, 120 So. 3d 211, 2013 WL 4482979, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 13454 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Superior Hospitality Management, LLC, appeals the order denying its Motion to Dismiss or Stay on Grounds of Forum Non Conveniens.¹ A hearing on the motion was not held, so we do not have a transcript to review. Moreover, the order does not reveal whether the trial court engaged in the substantive four-step analysis as mandated in Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 674 So.2d 86 (Fla.1996), and rule 1.061(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. We, therefore, reverse the order under review and remand this case to the trial court to either hold a hearing or render an order showing that the trial court applied the analysis under Kinney and rule 1.061(a). See Camperos v. Estrella, - So.3d -, -, 2013 WL 1629255, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D855, D855 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 17, 2013) (stating that [212]*212an order on a motion to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens is “subject to reversal and remand as insufficient where, as here, there is neither (1) ‘meaningful analysis’ in the order, nor (2) a transcript reflecting ‘an adequate analysis of the Kinney factors during the hearing itself (quoting ABA Capital Mkts. Corp. v. Provincial De Reaseguros C.A., 101 So.3d 385, 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012))); Levinson & Lichtman, LLP v. Levinson, 35 So.3d 182, 182-83 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Wood v. Bluestone, 9 So.3d 671, 673-74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Carenza v. Sun Int’l Hotels, Ltd., 699 So.2d 830, 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“Neither the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion nor its pronouncements during the hearing on the motion provide this court with enough information to determine whether the trial judge adequately considered each step of the Kinney test in reaching his conclusion.”).

REVERSED; REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

SAWAYA and BERGER, JJ., concur. GRIFFIN, J., dissents, with opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Superior Hospitality Management, LLC, appeals the order denying its Motion to Dismiss or Stay on Grounds of Forum Non Conveniens.¹ A hearing on the motion was not held, so we do not have a transcript to review. Moreover, the order does not reveal whether the trial court engaged in the substantive four-step analysis as mandated in Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 674 So.2d 86 (Fla.1996), and rule 1.061(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. We, therefore, reverse the order under review and remand this case to the trial court to either hold a hearing or render an order showing that the trial court applied the analysis under Kinney and rule 1.061(a). See Camperos v. Estrella, - So.3d -, -, 2013 WL 1629255, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D855, D855 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 17, 2013) (stating that [212]*212an order on a motion to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens is “subject to reversal and remand as insufficient where, as here, there is neither (1) ‘meaningful analysis’ in the order, nor (2) a transcript reflecting ‘an adequate analysis of the Kinney factors during the hearing itself (quoting ABA Capital Mkts. Corp. v. Provincial De Reaseguros C.A., 101 So.3d 385, 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012))); Levinson & Lichtman, LLP v. Levinson, 35 So.3d 182, 182-83 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Wood v. Bluestone, 9 So.3d 671, 673-74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Carenza v. Sun Int’l Hotels, Ltd., 699 So.2d 830, 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“Neither the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion nor its pronouncements during the hearing on the motion provide this court with enough information to determine whether the trial judge adequately considered each step of the Kinney test in reaching his conclusion.”).

REVERSED; REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

SAWAYA and BERGER, JJ., concur. GRIFFIN, J., dissents, with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 So. 3d 211, 2013 WL 4482979, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 13454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/superior-hospitality-management-llc-v-pacific-gateway-concessions-llc-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack