`IN THE COUNTY COURT IN AND FOR
`MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
`
`Case No.: 23-024079-SP-25
`
`REVITALIZE CARE OF CENTRAL FLORIDA,
`LLC A/A/O MUMINDRA RAMDOWAR,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AUTO CLUB INSURANCE COMPANY OF
`FLORIDA,
`
`Defendant. _____________________________/
`
`DEFENDANT’S AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S
`COMPLAINT FOR IMPROPER VENUE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
`MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE AND/OR
`PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON-CONVENIENS
`
` COMES NOW , Defendant, AUTO CLUB INSUANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA ,
`through its undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.140(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure,
`hereby files this Amended Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Improper Venue , in the
`alternative seeks the transfer of venue of the subject action pursuant to Sections 47.011, 47.051,
`47.091, and 47.122, Florida Statutes, and Rule 1.060, Florida Rule s of Civil Procedure and/or
`pursuant to the Doctrine of Forum Non-Conveniens, and in support thereof, states the following:
`FACTS
`1. On April 1, 2020, the Claimant, MUMINDRA RAMDOWAR (hereinafter “Claimant”),
`was allegedly involved in an automobile accident in Orange County, Florida. See
`Affidavit of Claims Representative filed under separate cover.
`2. On the date of the alleged accident, the Claimant resided in Orange County, Florida. See
`Affidavit.
`Filing # 203853748 E-Filed 08/01/2024 01:48:14 PM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`3. The Claimant allegedly received medical treatment with the Plaintiff, REVITALIZE
`CARE OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, LLC., who is located in Orange County, Florida. See
`Affidavit.
`4. The Claimant/Named Insured lives in Orange County, Florida at the time the policy for
`which a claim is being made was entered into. See Affidavit.
`5. On May 23, 2023 , the Plaintiff REVITALIZE CARE OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, LLC
`A/A/O MUMINDRA RAMDOWAR (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) , filed a one (1) Count
`Complaint for alleged unpaid PIP benefits against the Defendant, AUTO CLUB
`INSUANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, (hereinafter “Defendant”), in the County Court
`in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida.
`6. However, the Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts or provide an adequate legal basis
`supporting why venue for this cause of action is proper in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
`7. The Defendant is a domestic corporation in the State of Florida.
`8. As stated above, the Plaintiff, Claimant, Insured, Accident, and treatment all occurred in
`Orange County or its vicinity. Furthermore, the policy was entered into in Orlando
`County, Florida. See Affidavit.
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW
`A. STANDARD
`
`9. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(b) states in relevant part that “the following
`defenses may be made by motion at the option of the pleader: (3) improper venue”.
`10. If a defendant desires to contest the propriety of the venue selected by the plaintiff, he
`may do so by filing a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue. Rule
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`1.140(b)(3). Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. National Bank of Melbourne
`& Trust Co., 238 So. 2d 665, at 667 (Fla. 4d DCA 1970).
`11. In the alternative, Defendant is seeking that this Court transfer the action to a more
`appropriate venue under Florida Statutes.
`12. Specifically, pursuant to Fla. Stat. 47.011, “[a]ctions shall be brought only in the county
`where the defendant resides, where the action accrued, or where the property in litigation
`is located.” [emphasis added]
`13. Fla. Stat. 47.051 dictates venue as it relates to domestic corporations doing business in
`the State of Florida, such as The Defendant, stating in relevant part “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.” [emphasis added]
`14. The matter of who pays for the venue transfer is outlined in Fla. Stat. 47.091.
`15. Further, the court also has the power to grant a venue transfer for the convenience of the
`parties or witnesses involved in the matter under Fla. Stat. 47.122 and/or the Doctrine of
`Forum Non-Conveniens.
`16. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.060 (b) states that “When any action is filed laying
`venue in the wrong county, the court may transfer the action in the manner provided in
`rule 1.170(j) to the proper court in any county where it might have been brought in
`accordance with the venue statutes.”
`B. THIS ACTION SHOULD BE DISMISSED PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 1.140(B) AND
`FLA. STAT. 47.011 AND FLA. STAT. 47.051 OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
`TRANSFERRED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`17. First, Plaintiff generally states within the Complaint that the alleged cause of action
`accrued as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on or about April 1, 2020,
`involving the claimant, MUMINDRA RAMDOWAR , with no reference as to the
`location of said motor vehicle accident. See Paragraph (5) of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`18. Second, the Plaintiff fails to state and/or allege any legal basis supporting the claim that
`venue is proper against the Defendant, simply pleading that Defendant “was and remains
`a foreign or domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
`Florida and is otherwise sui juris” and further that Defendant “was and is a corporation
`authorized to do business in, maintains an office and agents in, and regularly sells
`automobile insurance policies to the general public in MIAMI -DADE County.” See
`Paragraphs (2) and (3) of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`19. However, such a general assertion or conclusory claim is insufficient to establish “venue”
`over a Florida based domestic corporation.
`20. Defendant is a domestic corporation in the State of Florida with its principal place of
`business in Hillsborough County, Florida.
`21. When determining proper venue under Florida law, it is well settled that “[ A]ctions 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 .” See § 47.011, Fla. Stat. (2023)
`(emphasis added). Moreover, when filing an action against a domestic corporate
`defendant, like Defendant, the Plaintiff must file the action “ only in the county where
`such corporation has, or usually keeps, an office for transaction of its customa ry
`business, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is
`located.” § 47.051, Fla. Stat. (202 3) (emphasis added); See Florida Gamco, Inc. v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`Fontaine, 68 So.3d 923, 929 (Fla. 4 d DCA 2011) (Florida corporation resided for
`purposes of venue, in county where it had its principal place of business, not in county
`where it merely conducted business); See also Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Munoz -Upton,
`127 So. 3d 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (holding that a domestic corporation can only be
`sued in the county where an insurer keeps an office for the transaction of its customary
`business, not where its agents are located); See also Allen v. Walker , 810 So. 2d 1090
`(Fla. 4d DCA 2002) (holding that venue was proper in county where cause of action
`occurred); See also Williams v. Goldsmith , 619 So. 2d 330, 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
`(holding that “a tort accrues where the plaintiff first suffers injury”).
`22. In Symbol Mattress of Florida v. Royal Sleep Products , 832 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 5d DCA
`2002), the Court held if there is no legal basis to support the Plaintiff’s choice of venue,
`the trial Court must dismiss the case. See also Pozo v. Roadhouse Grill, Inc. , 790 So. 2d
`1255, 1258, 1261 (Fla. 5d DCA 2001).
`23. In Voineag v. Kline, 831 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2002), the Plaintiff brought a personal
`injury suit against the Defendants in connection with an automobile accident in Duval
`County, Florida. Once it was discovered that the accident occurred in Martin County, the
`Court found there was no basis for bringing the suit in Palm Beach County and ordered
`that the venue be transferred to Martin County.
`24. Here, when construing the plain language of Sections 47.011 and 47.051, Florida
`Statutes, and applying it to the four corners of Plaintiff’s Complaint, it becomes
`abundantly clear that Plaintiff fails to plead, allege, and/or assert any legal basis
`supporting the notion that venue for the subject cause of action properly lies in Orange
`County, Florida; and thus, Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed. See Symbol Mattress
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`of Florida, Inc., 832 So. 2d at 235; citing Management Computer Controls, Inc. v.
`Charles Perry Construction, Inc., 743 So.2d 627, 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding that
`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).
`25. In the instant case, the cause of action accrued in Orange County, Florida or its vicinity.
`See Affidavit.
`26. All the treatment for the alleged injuries occurred in Orange County or its vicinity . See
`Affidavit.
`27. Defendant’s office for transaction of its customary business is in Hillsborough County.
`28. From reviewing every factual allegation asserted in the Plaintiff’s Complaint and taking
`them all as true, it appears venue for this cause of action lies in Orange County, Florida –
`not Miami-Dade County, Florida.
`29. Accordingly, based on the foregoing reasons and legal analysis outlined above, the
`Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed entirely without prejudice on the grounds of
`improper venue, or in the alternative, transferred to the appropriate venue of Orange
`County, Florida.
`C. THIS ACTION SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF ALL
`THE PARTIES INVOLVED PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE SECTION 47.122
`
`30. Florida Statute Section 47.122 states “For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or
`in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other
`court of record in which it might have been brought.”
`31. In this case, the venue chosen by the Plaintiff presents a great inconvenience to all the
`Defendant and all of the witnesses which would be implicated during the discovery
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`process and trial of this case as all of the parties and witnesses reside in or near Orange
`County, Florida and not in Miami-Dade County, Florida where this lawsuit has been
`filed.
`32. As a general rule, “Prior to granting a change in venue pursuant to section 47.122, a trial
`court must make a finding of substantial inconvenience or undue expense.” Fast v.
`Nelson, 22 So. 3d 109, 110 (Fla. 2d DCA, 2009).
`33. In this case, the Defendant asserts that allowing this case to proceed in Miami-Dade
`County, Florida would cause the Defendant both substantial inconvenience and undue
`expense.
`34. “There are three statutory factors a court considers in determining whether to grant a
`motion [to transfer venue] pursuant to section 47.112[, Fla. Stat.]: (1) the convenience of
`the parties; (2) the convenience of the witnesses; and (3) the interest of justice.” Pep Boys
`v. Montilla , 62 So. 3d 1162, 1165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (first alteration in original)
`(quoting Ford Motor Co. v. James, 33 So. 3d 91, 92–93 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)).
`35. In Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Estate of Chavez ex rel. Hernandez , 8 So. 3d 1157 (Fla.
`3d DCA 2009), the Defendants had moved to transfer venue to Lee County pursuant to
`section 47.122 of the Florida Statute. The Plaintiffs argued that venue was proper in
`Miami-Dade County because one Defendants principal office was located in Miami and
`the other Defendants counsel was from Miami. Id. at 1159. The issue brought to the court
`was whether pursuant to Section 47.122, the trial court abused its discretion in den ying
`the motion to transfer. Id. The court found that there was only one connection to Miami -
`Dade County, which was that one of three defendants had their principal office in Miami,
`meanwhile, there were numerous connections to Lee County as the accident took place in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`Lee County, the individuals who were involved in the accident resided in Lee County,
`and all of the witnesses and first responders resides in Lee County at the time of the
`accident. Id. at 1160. Based on the facts of the case, the District Court of Appeal of
`Florida held that the trial court abused its discretion by not transferring the action from
`Miami-Dade to Lee County. Id.
`36. In Lathan Const. Corp. v. McDaniel Grading, Inc. , 695 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 5 th DCA, 1996),
`the Court held that in a question of whether a suit should be transferred from Osceola
`County, Florida to Orange County, Florida - two Florida counties which are
`geographically adjacent - the suit should remain in Osceola County, Florida as “this
`matter strongly involves Osceola County.” Id.
`37. In this case, the Defendant asserts that all the witnesses in this matter reside in or near
`Orange County Florida, the accident which forms the basis for this cause of action
`occurred in Orange County, Florida, all the treatment rendered to claimant occurred
`within Orange County, Florida or its vicinity , and the alleged breach of the contract of
`insurance took place in Orange County, Florida. The only connection that Miami-Dade
`County, Florida has to this cause of action is that the Plaintiff’s attorney has his office
`within it.
`D. THIS ACTION SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED PURSUANT TO FORUM NON -
`CONVENIENS
`38. As stated previously, the venue the Plaintiff has chosen in inconvenient and should be
`transferred because all the parties and witnesses reside in or near Orange County, not
`Miami-Dade County, where this lawsuit has been filed.
`39. The doctrine of forum non-conveniens is a Federal Court Doctrine which was adopted by
`the Florida Supreme Court in the case of Kinney Systems v. Continental Insurance
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`Company, 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1996). As enumerated by the Florida’s Third District
`Court of Appeals, this doctrine may be used to transfer cases to another county, and the
`doctrine is to be applied literally: “In this context, we extend the philosophical train of
`thought to its next and logical plane: Our district should not be a forum for cases that
`have little or no connection to Dade and Monroe counties. Therefore, it is the stated
`policy of our Court to literally apply the doctrine of forum non -conveniens where there is
`little else other than the plaintiff’s choice of venue and where witnesses reside in other
`more suitable venues.” Westchester Fire Insurance Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance
`Co., 673 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 3rd DCA, 1996).
`40. Kinney’s four-step analysis is as follows:
`a. whether an adequate alternative forum, which possesses jurisdiction over the
`whole case, exists;
`b. whether all relevant factors of private interest outweigh the presumption against
`disturbing plaintiffs’ choice of forum;
`c. if the Court finds that the plaintiffs’ choice of forum outweighs, or is equal to, the
`private interest, then whether factors of public interest favor dismissal; and
`d. if so, whether the plaintiffs can reinstate their suit in the other forum without other
`undue inconvenience or prejudice.
`Id. at 90. Application of the four-step analysis to the facts of this case, as detailed below,
`requires this case to be transferred.
`STEP I - ADEQUATE ALTERNATIVE FORUM
`41. As outlined above, the first step in a forum non conveniens analysis requires this
`Court to determine whether an adequate alternative forum exists which has jurisdiction over all
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`of the parties to the action. This requirement is “satisfied when a defendant is ‘amenable to
`process’ in the other jurisdiction.” Kinney, at 90, quoting Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert, 330
`U.S. 501 (1946).
`42. In this case, the plaintiff has an adequate alternative forum within which to file
`suit in Orange County, Florida, where the plaintiff has its principal place of business, where the
`Defendant transacts business, and where the subsequent medical treatment occurred.
`STEP II - PRIVATE INTEREST
`43. The four factors to be considered in the second step of the forum non conveniens
`analysis, or the “private interest” analysis are: (1) “adequate access to evidence and relevant
`sites;” (2) “adequate access to witnesses;” (3) “adequate enforcement of judgments;” and (4) “the
`practicalities and expenses associated with the litigation.” Kinney, at 89. “`Private interests’ do
`not involve consideration of the availability or unavailability of advantageous legal theories, a
`history of generous or stingy damage awards, or procedural nuances that may affect outcomes,
`but that do not effectively deprive the plaintiff of any remedy.” Id. at 91 (emphasis supplied).
`44. Although a presumption exists in favor of a plaintiff’s choice of forum, the
`presumption will be defeated where the disadvantages to the defendant’s private interests are of
`sufficient weight to overcome the presumption. Kinney, at 91.
`45. In this case, the disadvantages to the defendant’s private interests are
`overwhelmingly sufficient to overcome this presumption:
`a) All the parties involved in this lawsuit reside in Orange County or its vicinity;
`b) All the witnesses in this lawsuit reside in or near Orange County or its vicinity;
`c) The vehicle and accident scene are in Orange County or its vicinity;
`d) The medical treatment which is the subject of this litigation was allegedly
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`rendered within Orange County, Florida or its vicinity.
`e) The filing of this lawsuit in a venue where all the parties, witnesses and evidence
`are located is not only practical but cost -effective. To require the Defendant to
`travel to Orange County for every deposition and inspection will increase the
`difficulty for the defendant to obtain evidence, procure witnesses’ testimony, and
`will certainly increase the defendant’s expenses.
`46. The most convenient forum under the “private interest” analysis is the forum in
`which the parties, witnesses and evidence reside. In this case, Orange County would be the most
`convenient forum.
`47. The Plaintiff will not suffer any prejudice if forced to bring this suit in Orange
`County.
`STEP III - PUBLIC INTEREST
`48. The third step in the forum non -conveniens analysis requires this Court to
`examine public interest factors associated with the maintenance of this lawsuit in the State of
`Florida. However, this Court shall consider these factors only if defendant’s private interests are
`in balance with those of Plaintiff’s.
`49. Here, the defendant’s private interests weigh in favor of transfer.
`50. Therefore, this Court need not consider the public interest factors.
`STEP IV- UNDUE INCONVENIENCE OR PREJUDICE
`51. If, after consideration of the first three steps of the forum non-conveniens analysis,
`this Court determines that the balance of interests favors transfer, this Court must entertain the
`final step of the analysis: this Court must ensure “that plaintiffs can reinstate their suit in the
`alternative forum without undue inconvenience or prejudice.” Kinney, at 92.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`52. The Plaintiff can certainly reinstate their lawsuit in the proper venue, Orange
`County without undue inconvenience of prejudice.
`53. Thus, transfer for forum non-conveniens is proper.
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendant, AUTO CLUB INSUANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA ,
`respectfully request this Honorable Court enter an Order dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint for
`improper venue and/or facilitate transfer of the subject action pursuant to Florida Statute Section
`47.011 and 47.051 and/or Inconvenience To The Parties Pursuant to Florida Statute Section
`47.122 and/or Pursuant To The Doctrine Of Forum Non -Conveniens in addition to any other
`relief which this Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
` I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 1st day of August, 2024, this document was filed using
`the Florida Courts E -Filing Portal. This document is being served on all counsel and pro se
`parties of record by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal, pursuant to and in compliance with Fla.
`R. Jud. Admin. 2.516. The mailing and electronic addresses are: Justin Weinstein, Esquire,
`Weinstein Legal, Pleadings@weinstein -legal.com, 713 E. Broward Blvd., Suite R, Fort
`Lauderdale, FL 33303, (954) 845-0505/(954) 206-0050 (F), Attorney for Plaintiff, REVITALIZE
`CARE OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, LLC, Attorney for Plaintiff, REVITALIZE CARE OF
`CENTRAL FLORIDA, LLC A/A/O MUMINDRA RAMDOWAR.
`
`
`
`KELLEY KRONENBERG
`
`/s/ Ruth A. Vargyas
`Ruth A. Vargyas, Esq.
`Fla. Bar No.: 1048818
`rvargyas@kelleykronenberg.com
`Nicholas L Young, Esq.
`Fla. Bar No.: 1022529
`nyoung@kelleykronenberg.com
`10360 West State Road 84
`Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324
`Telephone: (954) 370-9970
` Facsimile: (954) 382-1988
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`Address for service of pleadings
`only:
`shiservice@kelleykronenberg.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`