Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed July 14, 2021.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D20-1668
Lower Tribunal No. 19-19765
________________
Cordis Corporation,
Appellant,
vs.
Richard McNamara and Michelle McNamara,
Appellees.
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 appellees.
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 plaintiffs, Richard McNamara and his wife, Michelle McNamara,
brought a product liability suit against Cordis, alleging that defects in the
Cordis TrapEase Permanent Inferior Vena Cava Filter (“Cordis IVC Filter”)
caused Richard McNamara’s injuries. The plaintiffs are citizens and
residents of the state of Iowa. 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
1
At the time of the Cordis IVC Filter implantation, the plaintiffs were citizens
and residents of the state of New Jersey.
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
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).
Affirmed.
3
