Case Name: A.D.M. PRODUCTIONS, INC., Appellant, v. David SOLOMON, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2003-06-25
Citations: 847 So. 2d 1139
Docket Number: No. 3D03-701
Parties: A.D.M. PRODUCTIONS, INC., Appellant, v. David SOLOMON, Appellee.
Judges: Before LEVY, GERSTEN, and GREEN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 847
Pages: 1139–1139

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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).