Background
Jane Doe, June Doe, and John Doe appealed a nonfinal order of the Palm Beach County Circuit Court. The order denied Jane Doe’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied the appellants’ motions to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds.
The Fourth District’s per curiam opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the parties’ factual dispute. It addresses only the procedures the circuit court was required to follow in resolving the jurisdictional and forum-dismissal motions.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District reversed the denial of Jane Doe’s personal-jurisdiction motion and remanded for application of Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais. The circuit court must determine whether the affidavits and other sworn materials can be harmonized. If they cannot, the court must hold a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve material jurisdictional facts.
The court also reversed the denial of the appellants’ forum non conveniens motions. On remand, the circuit court must conduct the analysis required by Kinney Systems, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co. and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061, with express findings on the alternative forum’s adequacy, private-interest factors, applicable public-interest factors, and whether the appellants can reinstate their suit in the alternative forum without undue inconvenience or prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- Conflicting jurisdictional affidavits require harmonization if possible; unresolved material conflicts require a limited evidentiary hearing.
- A forum non conveniens ruling must apply the Kinney and Rule 1.061 framework.
- The trial court must make express findings on the specified forum non conveniens factors.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that trial courts must use the prescribed procedural frameworks before denying challenges to personal jurisdiction and forum selection. A conclusory denial without the required analysis and findings is subject to reversal on nonfinal appeal.