Court Opinion

ID: 9351964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-04 16:02:50.710436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:47.112570
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                        Opinion filed January 4, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-775
                        Lower Tribunal No. 22-427
                          ________________

                               Sal Stewart,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

         Florida High School Athletic Association, Inc.,
                                  Appellee.

     An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Pedro P.
Echarte, Jr., Judge.

     La Ley con John H. Ruiz, P.A., John H. Ruiz, Michael O. Mena, Gino
Moreno, and Marcus Davide, for appellant.

      Clayton-Johnston, P.A. and Leonard E. Ireland, Jr., (Gainesville), for
appellee.

Before EMAS, SCALES, and MILLER, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed. See Am. Vehicle Ins. Co. v. Goheagan, 35 So. 3d 1001,

1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“[W]hen a defendant challenges venue by filing

an affidavit controverting the plaintiff's venue allegations, the burden shifts

to the plaintiff to establish the propriety of the venue selection.”); B.C. Cook

& Sons Enters., Inc. v. R. & W. Fruit Co., 512 So. 2d 980, 982 (Fla. 2d DCA

1987) (“A plaintiff is not required to plead or prove facts in support of its

selection of venue in its complaint . . . . However, if the defendant sufficiently

challenges the plaintiff's venue selection, the plaintiff must then prove its

propriety.”); Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Laliberty, 506 So. 2d 67, 68 (Fla. 1st

DCA 1987) (“Once the plaintiff has selected venue, the burden falls on the

party challenging venue to demonstrate by affidavit or sworn pleading that it

is improper.”); see also § 47.051, Fla. Stat. (2022) (“Actions against domestic

corporations shall be brought only in the county where such corporation has,

or usually keeps, an office for transaction of its customary business, where

the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located.”).

                                        2