Symbol Mattress of Fla., Inc. v. Royal Sleep Products, Inc.
| Decision Date | 06 December 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D02-552.,5D02-552. |
| Citation | 832 So.2d 233 |
| Parties | SYMBOL MATTRESS OF FLORIDA, INC., Appellant, v. ROYAL SLEEP PRODUCTS, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
William W. Deem and Michael Cavendish, of McGuire Woods LLP, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
Sabrina Weiss Robinson of Adorno & Zeder, P.A., Miami, for Appellee.
Symbol Mattress of Florida, Inc. appeals the non-final order entered by the trial court granting Royal Sleep Products' motion to dismiss for improper venue and transferring the case to the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County. We have jurisdiction.1 Concluding that Royal Sleep Products failed to sustain its burden of proof, we reverse.
Symbol Mattress filed a complaint for declaratory relief in the circuit court, in and for Orange County, seeking a declaration that it was not contractually barred from hiring or continuing to employ Tim Brophy, a former employee of Royal Sleep Products. The complaint alleged that Symbol Mattress was a foreign corporation which transacted business in Florida, and that Royal Sleep was a Florida corporation with its principle place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The complaint further alleged that Royal Sleep had threatened to sue Symbol Mattress for breach of a confidentiality agreement based on the fact that Symbol Mattress had hired Brophy after he quit his job at Royal Sleep. In an effort to avoid such a lawsuit, Symbol Mattress filed this declaratory judgment suit in Orange County seeking a declaration that no such breach had occurred. The complaint alleged that venue was proper in Orange County because the cause of action accrued in Orange County, and because Royal Sleep maintained a sales office in Orange County for the transaction of its customary business.2
Royal Sleep filed a verified motion to dismiss for improper venue or to transfer venue on the basis of forum non-conveniens. The motion alleged that Royal Sleep had never maintained an office in Orange County, and that Symbol Mattress had breached the terms of the parties' confidentiality agreement by initiating and maintaining contact with Brophy while he was still employed by Royal Sleep. The motion alleged that venue was improper in Orange County because the underlying breach of contract claim occurred in Miami-Dade County, Royal Sleep resides in and transacts business in Miami-Dade County, and Miami-Dade County was the most convenient place for the case to be litigated.
In opposition to the motion, Symbol Mattress filed an affidavit prepared by Tim Brophy, in which he stated that he was currently employed by Symbol Mattress as their Orlando area sales representative and that he had previously worked for Royal Sleep as a sales representative, transacting business on behalf of Royal Sleep in Orange County.
The trial court granted Royal Sleep's motion on the basis of improper venue, without reaching the issue of forum non-conveniens, and transferred the matter to the circuit court, in and for Miami-Dade County. Symbol Mattress challenges that ruling arguing that the trial court erred in granting Royal Sleep's motion to dismiss based on improper venue, since the cause of action accrued in Orange County. We agree.
In Dive Bimini, Inc. v. Roberts, 745 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), the First District explained that the standard of appellate review for an order transferring venue on the basis of improper venue is de novo:
As we have recently explained: Whether venue is proper in a particular forum, however, is not a matter of judicial discretion. If there is no legal basis to support the plaintiff's choice of venue, the trial court must dismiss the case or transfer it to a forum that is authorized under the applicable venue statute. This kind of venue motion usually presents an issue of law or a mixed issue of law and fact. The question is not whether the trial court should transfer venue, but whether it must. Management Computer Controls, Inc. v. Charles Perry Constr., Inc., 743 So.2d 627, 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
Generally, a plaintiff may choose to institute suit in any proper place of venue and such choice must be honored by the trial court. A & M Engineering Plastics, Inc. v. Energy Saving Technology Co., 455 So.2d 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). In seeking a change of venue the defendant has the burden of clearly proving that the venue selected by the plaintiff is improper—it is insufficient to merely establish that venue is proper elsewhere. Inverness Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. McDaniel, 78 So.2d 100 (Fla.1955). See also Orange Blossom Enterprises, Inc. v. Brumlik, 430 So.2d 13 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Furthermore, in seeking a change of venue the defendant must establish a sufficient record or basis for the relief requested because only upon a showing that the lawsuit was filed in the wrong county can the trial court grant a motion for change of venue. Sheffield Steel Products, Inc. v. Powell Brothers, Inc., 385 So.2d 161 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 392 So.2d 1378 (Fla.1980). Section 47.011 of the Florida Statutes (2001) sets forth Florida's general venue provision as follows:
47.011. Where actions may be begun Actions shall be brought only in the county where the defendant resides, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located.
However, since the named party-defendant in this lawsuit was a domestic corporation (Royal Sleep), section 47.051 of the Florida Statutes (2001) must also be considered since the statute specifically defines the scope of venue for actions against corporations:
47.051. Actions against corporations 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.
It is undisputed that there is no property involved in the instant litigation and that Royal Sleep's office is located in Miami-Dade County. As for the third basis, the cause of action alleged in the complaint was a claim for declaratory relief; however, "[a] suit for declaratory relief does not itself constitute a cause of action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blackhawk Quarry Co. v. Hewitt Contracting
...defendant has the burden of showing that the venue selected by the plaintiff is improper. See Symbol Mattress of Fla., Inc. v. Royal Sleep Prods., Inc., 832 So.2d 233, 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Here, it is undisputed that there is no property involved in the instant litigation and that Black......
-
Ware Else, Inc. v. Ofstein
...fact. The question is not whether the trial court should transfer venue, but whether it must. Symbol Mattress of Florida, Inc. v. Royal Sleep Products, Inc., 832 So.2d 233, 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), quoting Management Computer Controls, Inc. v. Charles Perry Const., 743 So.2d 627, 630 (Fla. ......
-
Corio v. Lopez, 5D15–3474.
...may choose to institute suit in any proper place and the trial court must honor that choice. Symbol Mattress of Fla., Inc. v. Royal Sleep Prods., Inc., 832 So.2d 233, 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). In seeking a change of venue, the defendant has the burden of proving that the plaintiff's venue se......
-
Hudson Prot. Group Inc. v. Pcg Sec. Int'l Llc
...Reserve Realty Holdings, LLC v. B.S.E. Consultants, Inc., 39 So.3d 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Symbol Mattress of Fla., Inc. v. Royal Sleep Prods., Inc., 832 So.2d 233 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Koslow v. Sanders, 4 So.3d 37, 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“[A] cause of action on a contract accrues for venu......
-
Business litigation
...i.e., the suit cannot be brought in the county where it was filed. [ Symbol Mat- tress of Florida, Inc. v. Royal Sleep Products, Inc. , 832 So. 2d 233, 234-36 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).] Where venue is improperly laid, i.e., is not in a county where it is proper for the defendant to be sued, the d......