Cordis Corp. v. Ednesome

Full title: Cordis Corporation, Appellant, v. Willie Paul Ednesome, Appellee.

Court: Florida Court of Appeals, Third District

Date published: Jul 14, 2021

322 So. 3d 1212 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021)

Opinion

No. 3D20-1676

07-14-2021

CORDIS CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Willie Paul EDNESOME, Appellee.

Crowell & Moring LLP, and Vincent J. Galluzzo (Washington, D.C.); and Wallen Kelley, and John D. Golden, for appellant. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., and Joseph R. Johnson (West Palm Beach), for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Crowell & Moring LLP, and Vincent J. Galluzzo (Washington, D.C.); and Wallen Kelley, and John D. Golden, for appellant.

Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., and Joseph R. Johnson (West Palm Beach), for appellee.

Before HENDON, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Cordis Corporation ("Cordis") appeals from a non-final order denying its motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non-conveniens . We affirm.

The plaintiff, Willie Paul Ednesome, brought a product liability suit against Cordis, alleging that defects in the Cordis OptEase Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filter ("Cordis IVC Filter") caused his injuries. The plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the state of Alabama.¹ Cordis is a Florida corporation and maintains an office in Miami Lakes, Florida. Cordis's Miami Lakes office is the central location for handling product complaints, quality control, risk management, training, and regulatory compliance involving the Cordis IVC Filter.

1 The implantation of the Cordis IVC Filter occurred in Georgia.

Following a hearing, the trial court denied Cordis's motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens . Based on our review of the record, including the trial court's order addressing each of the forum non conveniens factors,² we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. As such, we affirm the order under review. Aerolineas Argentinas, S.A. v. Gimenez, 807 So. 2d 111, 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (stating that decision to grant or deny a forum non conveniens motion for dismissal rests in the sound discretion of the trial court).

2 The analysis for forum non conveniens is well established in Florida law. See Cortez v. Palace Resorts, 123 So. 3d 1085 (Fla. 2013) ; Kinney Sys., Inc. v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1996) ; Abeid-Saba v. Carnival Corp., 184 So. 3d 593, 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) ; Telemundo Network Grp., LLC v. Azteca Int'l Corp., 957 So. 2d 705, 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) ; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.061(a).

Affirmed.