Port Royal Property, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Appellant,
Woodson Electric Solutions, Inc., a Florida corporation; Robert J. Smallwood, an individual; and Richard L. Hanson, an individual, Appellees.
final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for
Miami-Dade County, Lower Tribunal No. 18-29307 Jose M.
Burlington, P.L., and Kevin C. Kaplan and Jeffrey B.
Crockett, for appellant.
Fraser, PA, and Ian T. Holmes, David P. Fraser, and Daniel P.
Fraser (Naples), for appellees.
SALTER, LINDSEY, and HENDON, JJ.
Royal Property, LLC ("Plaintiff"), appeals from a
non-final order granting the defendants', Woodson
Electric Solutions, Inc., et al. (collectively,
"Defendants"), amended motion to transfer venue
from Miami-Dade County to Collier County pursuant to section
47.122, Florida Statutes (2019) ("amended motion to
transfer venue"). For the reasons that follow, we
reverse the order under review and remand for further
Facts and Procedural History
the Plaintiff's and the Defendants' second time
before this Court. See Woodson Elec. Sols., Inc. v. Port
Royal Prop., LLC, 271 So.3d 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
("Woodson Electric I"). As stated in
Woodson Electric I, the Plaintiff filed suit against
the Defendants in Miami-Dade County, stemming from the
design, installation, and implementation of audiovisual and
internet systems in a house owned by the Plaintiff in Naples,
Collier County, Florida. Id. at 113. The Defendants
moved to dismiss for improper venue and/or to transfer the
action from Miami-Dade County to Collier County under section
47.011, Florida Statutes (2018) ("motion to dismiss").
Id. In response to the motion to dismiss, the
Plaintiff filed an affidavit, which provides that the
Defendants made misrepresentations that induced the Plaintiff
to enter into a contract executed by the Plaintiff in Miami.
Id. Following a hearing, the trial court entered a
non-final order denying the Defendants' motion to
dismiss, and the Defendants filed the non-final appeal in
Woodson Electric I. Id. Based on this
Court's determination that the causes of action based on
the Defendants' alleged misrepresentations accrued in
Miami, we affirmed the trial court's non-final order
denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Id.
this Court's affirmance, the Defendants filed the amended
motion to transfer venue from Miami-Dade County to Collier
County pursuant to section 47.122, which provides: "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." In their amended motion to transfer
venue, the Defendants argued that transferring the action
from Miami-Dade County to Collier County was warranted
pursuant "to the required analysis under Kinney
System, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 674 So.2d 86
(Fla. 1996)." In making this argument, the Defendants
relied on this Court's opinion in Westchester Fire
Insurance Co. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., 673
So.2d 958 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), which was issued a few months
after the Florida Supreme Court issued Kinney.
hearing on the amended motion to transfer venue, the
Defendants argued that the trial court was required to
conduct the following four-part analysis set forth in
 As a prerequisite, the court must establish whether an
adequate alternative forum exists which possesses
jurisdiction over the whole case.  Next, the trial judge
must consider all relevant factors of private
interest, weighing in the balance a strong presumption
against disturbing plaintiffs' initial forum choice. 
If the trial judge finds this balance of private interests in
equipoise or near equipoise, he must then determine whether
or not factors of public interest tip the balance in
favor of a trial in [another] forum.  If he decides that
the balance favors such a . . . forum, the trial judge must
finally ensure that plaintiffs can reinstate their suit in
the alternative forum without undue inconvenience or
Id. at 90 (quoting Pain v. United Techs.
Corp., 637 F.2d 775, 784-85 (D.C. Cir. 1980)); see
also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.061(a) (codifying the four-step
analysis set forth in Kinney). In response, the
Plaintiff argued that the Kinney factors are not
applicable because Kinney relates to the transfer of
a case filed in Florida to a jurisdiction outside of Florida
based on forum non conveniens, not a transfer from one
Florida county to another Florida county pursuant to section
trial court entered a non-final order granting the
Defendants' amended motion to transfer venue. In doing
so, the trial court ...