Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed July 14, 2021.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D20-1670
Lower Tribunal No. 19-18372
________________
Cordis Corporation,
Appellant,
vs.
Stephen Young,
Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-
Dade County, David C. Miller, Judge.
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, Stephen Young, 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 New Mexico. 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.
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.
1
At the time of the Cordis IVC Filter implantation, the plaintiff was a citizen
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
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).
2
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).
Affirmed.
3