From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

TELEDYNE IND. v. MUSTANG RANCH ACFT

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Mar 29, 2000
753 So. 2d 785 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Opinion

No. 3D00-407.

Opinion filed March 29, 2000.

A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Dade County, Philip Bloom, Judge; L.T. No. 98-28041.

Barwick, Dillian, Lambert Ice, P.A., and Thomas E. Ice, for petitioner.

Lionel Barnet, for respondents.

Before COPE, SHEVIN and SORONDO, JJ.


We quash the trial court's order requiring the representative of the petitioner-defendant corporation to appear for deposition in Miami-Dade County instead of at the location of the defendant's headquarters in Alabama. The defendant is not seeking affirmative relief in this lawsuit. "A defendant . . . will not be required to travel a great distance and incur substantial expenses to be deposed by the plaintiff, unless the defendant is seeking affirmative relief. Thus, under Florida law a nonresident corporate defendant need not produce a nonresident corporate officer in Florida." Fortune Ins. Co. v. Santelli, 621 So.2d 546, 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (citations omitted); see Bruce J. Berman, Florida Civil Procedure ¶ 310.5[2][b] (1999 ed.). It has been said that there is an exception for "extraordinary circumstances," United Teachers Assocs. Ins. Co. v. Vanwinkle, 657 So.2d 1232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), but no such circumstances have been shown to exist here.

Certiorari granted.


Summaries of

TELEDYNE IND. v. MUSTANG RANCH ACFT

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Mar 29, 2000
753 So. 2d 785 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)
Case details for

TELEDYNE IND. v. MUSTANG RANCH ACFT

Case Details

Full title:TELEDYNE INDUSTRIES, INC. d/b/a TELEDYNE CONTINENTAL MOTORS, a foreign…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Mar 29, 2000

Citations

753 So. 2d 785 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)