Case Name: CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Appellant, v. John L. DEEM, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2006-07-13
Citations: 933 So. 2d 673
Docket Number: No. 1D05-4387
Parties: CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Appellant, v. John L. DEEM, Appellee.
Judges: BROWNING, J., concurs; THOMAS, J., dissents with written opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 933
Pages: 673–674

Head Matter:
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Appellant, v. John L. DEEM, Appellee.
No. 1D05-4387.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
July 13, 2006.
Homer H. Humphries, Jr., and Ronald R. Oberdier, of Humphries & Oberdier, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant.
Walton G. Bondurant, Jr., of Bondurant Law, P.C., Portsmouth, VA; Suzanne Bass, Jacksonville; and Michael J. Korn, of Korn & Zehmer, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee.

Opinion:
BARFIELD, J.
The appellant challenges the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss a suit on the ground of forum non conve-niens. In Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 674 So.2d 86 (Fla.1996), the Florida Supreme Court adopted the federal standard for application of the common law doctrine of forum non conve-niens, involving a four step analysis. The court first determines that an alternative forum is available. If so, the court then considers all the relevant private interests, weighing in the balance the strong presumption against disturbing the plaintiffs initial choice of forum. If the private interests are substantially in balance, the court then considers whether the balance of public interests favors trial in the alternate forum, and if so, the court must ensure that the plaintiff will be able to bring suit in the alternative forum without undue inconvenience or prejudice. This standard was codified in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061, which also provides: "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."
In the case at issue, the plaintiffs injury occurred in West Virginia, but the defendant's principal place of business was located in Jacksonville, Florida. The availability of an alternate forum was demonstrated. However, after considering the relevant private interests, including the fact that numerous witnesses were located in Jacksonville and in West Virgi nia, the trial judge determined that the balance of interests did not favor disturbing the plaintiffs initial choice of forum. The evidence supports denial of the motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens, and the appellant has not demonstrated that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the motion. The order is therefore AFFIRMED.
BROWNING, J., concurs; THOMAS, J., dissents with written opinion.