Case ID: so2d_847/html/1139-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

A.D.M. PRODUCTIONS, INC., Appellant, v. David SOLOMON, Appellee.
    No. 3D03-701.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    June 25, 2003.
    McClosky, D’Anna, Ioannou & Dieterle, LLP, and Gordon A. Dieterle, and David J. Pascuzzi (Boca Raton), for appellant.
    Jennifer G. Herskowitz, for appellee.
    Before LEVY, GERSTEN, and GREEN, JJ.
   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 Kinney 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. 
      
      . See Kinney Sys., Inc. v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 674 So.2d 86 (Fla.1996).