Trw Automotive U.S. LLC v. Papandopoles
| Decision Date | 14 February 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D05-4819.,No. 4D05-4816.,No. 4D05-4818.,No. 4D05-4817.,No. 4D05-4820.,4D05-4816.,4D05-4817.,4D05-4818.,4D05-4819.,4D05-4820. |
| Citation | 949 So.2d 297 |
| Parties | TRW AUTOMOTIVE U.S. LLC, (as assignee of the former TRW Inc., n/k/a Northrop Grumman Space and Mission Systems Corporation), TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc., a foreign corporation, and TRW Canada Ltd., f/k/a TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Limited, a Canadian entity, Appellants, v. Anibal Oscar PAPANDOPOLES, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Teresa Ivanoff, et al., Appellees. Bridgestone Corporation, Appellant, v. Anibal Oscar Papandopoles, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Teresa Ivanoff, et al., Appellees. Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC, Appellant, v. Anibal Oscar Papandopoles, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Teresa Ivanoff, et al., Appellees. Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC, Appellant, v. Blanca Del Valle Yampa, individually and on behalf of her son, Ronald Gustavo Manrique Eyzaguirre, Jr., a minor, et al., Appellees. Ford Motor Company, a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. Anibal Oscar Papandopoles, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Teresa Ivanoff, and Blanca Del Valle Yampa, individually, and on behalf of her son, Ronald Gustavo Manrique Eyzaguirre, Jr., a minor, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
These five cases were consolidated for the purpose of assigning them to the same panel of judges for oral argument and for issuance of this opinion, as each case appeals the same order denying appellants' joint motions to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds. See J.M.B. v. State, 776 So.2d 353, 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) ).
Appellants, TRW Automotive U.S. LLC (as assignee of the former TRW Inc., n/k/a Northrop Grumman Space and Mission Systems Corporation), TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Inc., TRW Canada Ltd., f/k/a TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Limited ("TRW"), Ford Motor Company ("Ford"), Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC ("Bridgestone/Firestone"), and Bridgestone Corporation ("Bridgestone Corp."), appeal the trial court's non-final order denying their joint motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by appellees, Anibal Oscar Papandopoles, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Teresa Ivanoff, et al. ("Papandopoles"), on forum non conveniens grounds.
Appellants, Ford and Bridgestone/Firestone, timely appeal the same order appealed in Papandopoles, which also denied their joint motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by appellees, Blanca Del Valle Yampa, individually, and on behalf of her son, Ronald Gustavo Manrique Eyzaguirre, Jr., a minor, et al. ("Yampa"), on forum non conveniens grounds.
We reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct an adequate forum non conveniens analysis pursuant to Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 674 So.2d 86 (Fla.1996).
On January 4, 2003, eight Argentine citizens were traveling in a 1998 Ford Explorer in the Town of San Pedro, Province of Buenos Aires, Argentina, when the vehicle allegedly rolled over. Six of the passengers suffered personal injuries and two suffered fatal injuries. The Papandopoles plaintiffs, including the six surviving passengers and personal representatives of the two deceased passengers, filed suit in Broward County, Florida, against appellants, TRW, Ford, Bridgestone/Firestone, and Bridgestone Corp. The complaint asserted various negligence and products liability claims against appellants, and a claim for declaratory relief against Ford for violation of Florida's Sunshine in Litigation Act, codified at section 69.081, Florida Statutes.
On June 3, 2002, two Argentine citizens were traveling in a 1999 Ford Explorer in La Puerta, Argentina, when the vehicle allegedly rolled over. One of the passengers suffered personal injuries and the other suffered fatal injuries. The Yampa plaintiffs, including the surviving passenger and personal representative of the deceased passenger, filed suit in Broward County, Florida, against appellants, Ford, Bridgestone/Firestone, and Bridgestone Corp.1 The complaint alleged the same claims asserted in Papandopoles, adding a punitive damages claim against Ford. TRW was not a defendant in Yampa.
In Papandopoles, appellants filed a joint motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, seeking dismissal to Argentina. TRW independently filed a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, arguing in the alternative that Michigan was another adequate, alternative forum. In Yampa, Ford, Bridgestone/Firestone, and Bridgestone Corp. filed a joint motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, adopting the motion and memorandum pertaining to Argentina filed in Papandopoles.
Prior to filing the motions in Papandopoles and Yampa, Ford and TRW filed a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens in Nowell v. Ford Motor Co., et al., Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida case number CACE 03-2693 08. Nowell was an action against Ford and TRW, brought by different Argentine plaintiffs, arising from a different accident in Argentina, involving a different Ford Explorer, but filed in Broward County by the same law firm that filed Papandopoles and Yampa. Bridgestone/Firestone and Bridgestone Corp. were not defendants in Nowell.
In December 2003, Judge J. Leonard Fleet denied the joint forum non conveniens motion in Nowell. This court per curiam affirmed that order. See Ford Motor Co. v. Nowell, 896 So.2d 768 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (table). Following this court's decision in Nowell, the plaintiffs in Nowell moved to consolidate Nowell, Papandopoles, and Yampa before Judge Fleet for pre-trial purposes. Judge Fleet granted the motion.
Following the consolidation, the parties set the motions in Papandopoles and Yampa for hearing before Judge Fleet. After a brief hearing, Judge Fleet denied appellants' motions, incorporating his findings of fact and law and rulings from his order in Nowell. He made no specific findings of fact or law concerning Papandopoles and Yampa. Rather, he concluded that this court's decision in Nowell was both controlling authority and the law of the case in Papandopoles and Yampa.
Appellants argue that the trial court erred in giving Nowell preclusive effect in Papandopoles and Yampa. We agree.
First, Nowell has no precedential value because it was a per curiam affirmance. See St. Fort v. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, 902 So.2d 244, 248-49 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (citing State v. Swartz, 734 So.2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)) (acknowledging that "a per curiam affirmance without written opinion, even one with a written dissent, has no precedential value and should not be relied on for anything other than res judicata").
Second, the trial court erred in considering the ruling in Nowell to be the law of the case. Whether a ruling is the law of the case is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. Festival Fun Parks, LLC v. Gooch, 904 So.2d 542, 544 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (citing D'Angelo v. Fitzmaurice, 863 So.2d 311, 314 (Fla. 2003)).
In Alford v. Summerlin, 423 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), the First District explained:
[T]he doctrine of the law of the case [states] that whatever is once established between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case, whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts in the case.
Id. at 485 (citing McGregor v. Provident Trust Co., 119 Fla. 718, 162 So. 323 (1935); Rosenkrantz v. Hall, 172 So.2d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)). This court's ruling in Nowell cannot be the law of the case in Papandopoles and Yampa because they are separate lawsuits involving different claims, raised by different plaintiffs, and arising out of different accidents. Further, Bridgestone/Firestone and Bridgestone Corp. were not defendants in Nowell.
Based on the foregoing, the trial court erred in giving Nowell preclusive effect in Papandopoles and Yampa.
Appellants argue next that the trial court erred in failing to conduct the four-step forum non conveniens analysis articulated by the Florida Supreme Court in Kinney. The Kinney factors were later codified in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061(a).
Rule 1.061(a) provides that an action may be dismissed on the grounds that relief can be sought in a more convenient forum if:
(1) the trial court finds that an adequate alternate forum exists which possesses jurisdiction over the whole case, including all of the parties;
(2...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. Dolet
...a ruling is the law of the case is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo." (quoting TRW Auto. U.S. v. Papandopoles, 949 So. 2d 297, 300 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007))); Commonwealth v. Lancit, 139 A.3d 204, 206 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016) ("Whether the Law of the Case Doctrine preclude......
-
Bridgestone/Firestone v. Garcia
... ... TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc., TRW Automotive U.S. LLC, and TRW Canada Limited, Appellants, ... Carlos Dario Santiso, individually and as ... Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC, Appellant, ... Anibal Oscar Papandopoles, as Personal Representative for the Estate of Teresa Ivanoff; Estela Noemi Ivanovik, individually; ... ...
-
Poultry & Indus. Suppliers, Inc. v. Incubacol, S.A.S.
...forum exists is a prerequisite to its determination on a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens); TRW Auto. U.S. LLC v. Papandopoles, 949 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (noting trial court erred in failing to consider additional alternative forum raised by the defendant). We decline the......
-
Benzrent 1, LLC v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB
...2012). "Whether a ruling is the law of the case is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo." TRW Auto. U.S. LLC v. Papandopoles, 949 So.2d 297, 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).2 While this Court has not directly addressed the standing issue decided in 3709 N. Flagler, in Wilmington Trus......
-
Deja vu in Florida courts: when courts "re-view" the law of the case.
...was joined by a dissenting judge, thereby creating a majority, it became the law of the case). (26) TRW Auto. U.S. LLC v. Papandopoles, 949 So. 2d 297, 300 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. (27) Tiede v. Satterfield, 870 So. 2d 225, 229 n.2 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2004). (28) Feigen v. Sokolsky, 65 So. 2d 769, 771 ......