MGA INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. NEW VISTA DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING SERVICES, LLC, A/A/O HECTOR YAQUE ( 2023 )

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed January 11, 2023.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-1093
Lower Tribunal No. 21-39718 SP
________________
MGA Insurance Company, Inc.,
Appellant,
vs.
New Vista Diagnostic Imaging Services, LLC,
a/a/o Hector Yaque,
Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the County Court for Miami-
Dade County, Ayana Harris, Judge.
Dutton Law Group, P.A., and Rebecca Delaney, Scott W. Dutton and
Christopher S. Dutton (Tampa), for appellant.
Douglas H. Stein, P.A., and Douglas H. Stein, for appellee.
Before EMAS, HENDON and GORDO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Port Royal Prop., LLC v. Woodson Elec. Sols., Inc., 305
So. 3d 50, 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“[A] trial court’s ruling on a motion to
transfer venue under section 47.122 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”);
Taylor v. Dasilva, 401 So. 2d 1161, 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (“When venue
is proper in more than one county, the choice rests with the plaintiff and
should not be disturbed without a showing of substantial inconvenience or
the likelihood of injustice.”) (internal citation omitted); Gov’t Employees Ins.
Co. v. Burns, 672 So. 2d 834, 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (“[I]n order to
successfully challenge that selection, the burden is upon the defendant to
show either substantial inconvenience or that undue expense requires a
change for the convenience of the parties or witnesses.”); R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co. v. Mooney, 147 So. 3d 42, 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“[I]n order
for a court to consider the convenience of the witnesses, the court must know
who the witnesses are and the significance of their testimony.” (quoting
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Young, 690 So. 2d 1377, 1379 (Fla.
1st DCA 1997))); R.C. Storage One, Inc. v. Strand Realty, Inc., 714 So. 2d
634, 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (noting affidavits in support of appellant’s
motion to transfer venue were insufficient as they were “little more than a
laundry list of witness, their places of residence and the conclusory
2
statement that it would be inconvenient for them to travel to [another
county]”).
3