Cardoso v. FPB BANK, 879 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Cardoso v. FPB BANK, 879 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2013–2024 · 2 courts · …a forum non conveniens argument coming from a party sued where it resides is both 'puzzling' and 'strange. at p. 1250 ✓
26 citation events (26 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Alexander M. Ruiz v. Evan Perez (fladistctapp, 2025-08-06)
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alexander M. Ruiz v. Evan Perez
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
See Johnson v. State, 47 So. 3d 941, 943 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“[A]n abuse of discretion occurs when the judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable or where no reasonable man would take the view the trial court adopted.”); Cortez v. Palace Resorts, Inc., 123 So. 3d 1085, 1092 (Fla. 2013) (“‘[T]he reviewing court always should remember that a strong presumption favors the plaintiff’s choice of forum.’ This presumption ‘can be defeated only if the relative disadvantages to the defendant’s private interests are of sufficient weight to overcome the presumption.’” (ci…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Petro Welt Trading ges.M.B.h v. Edward Brinkmann
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Cortez, 123 So. 3d at 1092 (quoting Leon v. Millon Air, Inc., 251 F.3d 1305 , 1311 (11th Cir. 2001)).12 See generally Johnny’s Pool Super Ctr., Inc. v. Foreverpools Caribbean, LLC, 307 So. 3d 832 , 835 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“[G]enerally, an order denying a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens will be reversed where neither the order nor the hearing transcript establishes that the trial court engaged in a meaningful analysis of the relevant, requisite Kinney factors.”); Sybac Solar AG, Co. v. Falz, 174 So. 3d 383 , 385–86 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (“[A] trial court abuses its discret…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) DEAN REIBER v. CAMILLA MAURITA YAMASAKI
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
As this court has aptly stated, “a forum non conveniens argument coming from a party sued where [it] resides is both ‘puzzling’ and ‘strange.’ ” Cardoso v. FPB Bank, 879 So. 2d 1247, 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (quoting Sanwa Bank, Ltd. v. Kato, 734 1 Reiber’s counsel also indicated during oral argument that he was prepared to dismiss the Belize action if the Florida action was allowed to proceed. 8 So. 2d 557 , 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) DEAN REIBER v. CAMILLA MAURITA YAMASAKI
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
As this court has aptly stated, “a forum non conveniens argument coming from a party sued where [it] resides is both ‘puzzling’ and ‘strange.’ ” Cardoso v. FPB Bank, 879 So. 2d 1247, 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (quoting Sanwa Bank, Ltd. v. Kato, 734 1 Reiber’s counsel also indicated during oral argument that he was prepared to dismiss the Belize action if the Florida action was allowed to proceed. 8 So. 2d 557 , 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) GLF Construction Corp. v. Credinform International, S.A.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Further, we note that Credinform sued GLF in its home , forum of Florida, and, as we have noted in prior decisions, “a forum non con-veniens argument coming from a party sued where, [it] resides is both ‘puzzling’ and ‘strange.’ ” Cardoso v. FPB Bank, 879 So. 2d 1247, 1260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (quoting Sanwa Bank, Ltd. v. Kato, 734 So.2d 557, 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Taurus International Manufacturing, Inc. v. Friend
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
As this court has previously observed, “[a] forum non conveniens argument coming from a party sued where he resides is both puzzling and strange.” Cardoso v. FPB Bank, 879 So.2d 1247, 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (internal quotations omitted) (affirming denial of motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens in a case that “involves the exceptional situation in which the defendant has been sued in his own forum and has objected that his home forum is inconvenient”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Michaluk v. Credorax (USA), Inc. (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
In Cardoso v. FPB Bank, 879 So.2d 1247, 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), this court construed a forum selection clause which provided in pertinent part: Any legal action ... with respect to this Agreement ... may be brought in the courts of Antigua, and/or in the Courts of the city of Sao Paulo, state of Sao Paulo, Federative Republic of Brazil, at the sole option of the Lender, and the Borrower and Guarantor hereby accept and irrevocably submit to the jurisdiction of such courts for the purpose of any such action or proceeding.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Michaluex C. Credorax (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
In the instant case, the use of the word “submit” instead of “consent”, does not by itself provide the requisite words of exclusivity to render this forum selection clause mandatory. 14 In Cardoso v. FPB Bank, 879 So. 2d 1247, 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), this court construed a forum selection clause which provided in pertinent part: Any legal action. . . with respect to this Agreement. . . may be brought in the courts of Antigua, and/or in the Courts of the city of Sao Paulo, state of Sao Paulo, Federative Republic of Brazil, at the sole option of the Lender, and the Borrower and Guaranto…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cortez v. Palace Resorts, Inc.
Fla. · 2013 · confidence medium
As the Third District itself has stated in other cases, “a forum non conveniens argument coming from a party sued where [it] resides is both ‘puzzling’ and ‘strange.’” Cardoso v. FPB Bank, 879 So.2d 1247, 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (quoting Sanwa Bank, Ltd. v. Kato, 734 So.2d 557, 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rabie Cortez v. Palace Holdings, S.A. De C.V. (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
As this Court noted in Cardoso v. FPB Bank, 879 So.2d 1247, 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), “a forum non conveniens argument coming from a party sued where [it] resides is both puzzling and strange.” The Florida Defendants, with a straight face, claim that Quintana Roo, Mexico, is a more convenient forum to litigate a United States citizen’s negligent vacation packaging claim against them, although Miami is where their corporate headquarters is located, all the Palace Resort hotels’ vacation packages are approved, and all customer complaints are investigated.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Weisser v. PNC BANK, NA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Quinones, 509 So.2d at 275 (emphasis added); see also Regal Kitchens, 894 So.2d at 290 (holding that a forum selection clause is permissive where it provides that "[a]ny litigation concerning this contract shall be governed by the law of the State of Florida, with proper venue in Palm Beach County") (emphasis added); Cardoso v. FPB Bank, 879 So.2d 1247, 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (holding that forum selection clause, which provides that "[a]ny legal action or proceeding against Borrower and/or Guarantor with respect to this Agreement, the Note, the Loan and the Guarantee hereunder may be brought …
cited Cited as authority (rule) Tananta v. Cruise Ships Catering & Services Int'l., N.V.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
A forum non conveniens argument coming from a party sued where he resides is both “puzzling” and “strange.” Cardoso v. FPB Bank, 879 So.2d 1247, 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (citations omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Tananta v. CRUISE SHIPS CATERING AND SERV.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
A forum non conveniens argument coming from a party sued where he resides is both "puzzling" and "strange." Cardoso v. FPB Bank, 879 So.2d 1247, 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (citations omitted).
cited Cited "see" MARY ANN JAMES DE HOLGUIN v. CAMILA HOLGUIN GODIN
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cardoso v. FPB Bank, 879 So. 2d 1247, 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).
cited Cited "see" MARY ANN JAMES DE HOLGUIN v. CAMILA HOLGUIN GODIN
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cardoso v. FPB Bank, 879 So. 2d 1247, 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).
cited Cited "see" Corinthian Colleges v. Philadelphia Indem.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cardoso v. FPB Bank, 879 So.2d 1247, 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Teesha Adams, Etc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Taurus Int’l Mfg., Inc. v. Friend, 217 So. 3d 1133, 1134 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (observing that “[a] forum non conveniens argument coming from a party sued where he resides is both puzzling and strange” (quoting Cardoso v. FPB Bank, 879 So. 2d 1247, 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004))).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sergio Luiz Vergani CARDOSO, Appellant,
v.
FPB BANK, etc., Appellee.
3D03-3049.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Apr 21, 2004.
879 So. 2d 1247
2004 WL 840285
Fletcher, Ramirez, and Shepherd.
Cited by 19 opinions  |  Published

[*1248] Benitez & Associates and Leo Benitez, for appellant.

Fine & Licitra, LLP, and Edward A. Licitra and Alan S. Fine, Miami, for appellee.

Before FLETCHER, RAMIREZ, and SHEPHERD, JJ.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied August 11, 2004.

SHEPHERD, J.

We review a non-final order which, relying on the forum non conveniens doctrine, denied Sergio Luis Vergani Cardoso's ("Cardoso") motion to dismiss a complaint for collection of a debt guaranteed by him. We affirm.

On or about November 7, 2001, Cardoso, a resident of Miami-Dade County, executed a personal guarantee on a loan made to Stella Barros Turismo, Ltd. ("Stella Barros") by the plaintiff, FPB Bank ("FPB Bank" or "FPB") in Brazil.[1] Cardoso is a former shareholder and employee of Stella Barros. Cardoso signed and executed the personal guarantee in Miami-Dade County, where he had been living for some eighteen months. The only two payments made on the loan since its inception were sent to an FPB Bank affiliate in Miami.

A trial court presented with a motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens engages a four-step analysis, originally set forth in Pain v. United Technologies Corp., 637 F.2d 775 (D.C.Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1128, 102 S.Ct. 980, 71 L.Ed.2d 116 (1981), and adopted by the Florida Supreme Court in Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 674 So.2d 86 (Fla.1996):

[*1249] (1) As a prerequisite, the court must establish whether an adequate alternative forum exists which possesses jurisdiction over the whole case.
(2) 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.
(3) 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.
(4) 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 prejudice.

Kinney, 674 So.2d at 90.

Cardoso claims that he is excused from satisfying the Kinney requirements because a forum selection clause in the loan documents confines the suit solely to either Antigua, West Indies, where the bank is headquartered, or Sao Paulo, Brazil, where the loan transaction was negotiated and consummated in all respects except for Cardoso's signature. Cardoso relies on the following language found in the loan documents:

Any legal action or proceeding against Borrower and/or Guarantor with respect to this Agreement, the Note, the Loan and the Guarantee hereunder may be brought in the courts of Antigua, and/or in the Courts of the city of Sao Paulo, state of Sao Paulo, Federative Republic of Brazil, at the sole option of the Lender, and the Borrower and the Guarantor hereby accept and irrevocably submit to the jurisdiction of such courts for the purpose of any such action or proceeding. The Borrower and the Guarantor hereby irrevocably consent to the service of process upon them in such proceedings by mailing copies thereof by registered mail to their address as specified or in any other manner permitted by law. Failure of the Borrower and/or the Guarantor to receive service of process in any such proceeding shall not affect the validity of such service or any judgment based thereon.

(Emphasis added.)

In this posture, Cardoso misreads the loan documents and misapplies Florida law to clauses of this type. Nowhere do the loan documents state that the Bank must proceed in either Antigua or Sao Paulo. An ordinary and customary reading of the clause in question leads to the inescapable conclusion that the forum selection clause on which Cardoso seeks to rely is permissive, not mandatory.[2] A permissive forum selection clause suggests the parties' consent to a lawsuit in the location(s) mentioned therein, but does not preclude litigation in other locations. See Garcia Granados Quinones v. Swiss Bank Corp. (Overseas), S.A., 509 So.2d 273, 274-75 (Fla.1987); Celebrity Cruises, Inc. v. Hitosis, 785 So.2d 521, 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

Having determined that Cardoso cannot avail himself of the forum selection clause in the loan documents to obtain a dismissal of FPB's suit on the basis of forum non conveniens, we analyze the Kinney factors as they relate to this case, and likewise conclude that the trial court[*1250] was correct in denying Cardoso's motion. We observe at the outset, as has one of our sister courts, "that this case involves the exceptional situation in which the defendant[ ][has] been sued in [his] own home forum and [has] objected that [his] home forum is inconvenient." Sanwa Bank, Ltd. v. Kato, 734 So.2d 557, 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). A forum non conveniens argument coming from a party sued where he resides is both "puzzling" and "strange." Id. (citing Lony v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 935 F.2d 604, 608 (3d Cir.1991)). In addition, Cardoso neither filed nor succinctly articulated his defenses to the guarantee claim prior to the hearing on his motion to dismiss. It is therefore hardly surprising that his affidavit in support of his motion was both general and conclusory in nature, alleging, for example, that FPB Bank is not from Florida and does not conduct any business in Florida; that all of the documentary evidence is located in Brazil, and is mostly in Portuguese; that the loan transaction was consummated in Brazil and the like, but failing to identify any factual circumstance or even a single witness in Brazil with evidentiary value to Mr. Cardoso's defense of the claim.

It is axiomatic that Cardoso, as the movant below, has the burden of persuasion of each prong of the forum non conveniens analysis. Woods v. Nova Companies Belize Ltd., 739 So.2d 617, 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), rev. denied, 766 So.2d 222 (Fla.2000); Carenza v. Sun Intern. Hotels, Ltd., 699 So.2d 830, 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Moreover, this Court will not disturb the trial court's decision on a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens absent abuse of discretion. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.061(a); Bacardi v. Lindzon, 728 So.2d 309, 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Ira Mex, Inc. v. Southeastern Interior Constr., Inc., 777 So.2d 1107, 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

As to the first prong of the Kinney test, the trial court concluded that Cardoso did not meet his burden of persuasion that Brazil was both an available and adequate forum for resolution of this dispute. Although not the only way to satisfy this prong, a movant may submit testimony or an affidavit from a legal expert who either practices in the proposed alternate forum or who is otherwise familiar with the forum as an expert in that jurisdiction's law. E.g. Ciba-Geigy Ltd., BASF A.G. v. Fish Peddler, Inc., 691 So.2d 1111, 1120-21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Cardoso did neither here, and thus we are unable to say that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that Cardoso failed to meet his obligation under this prong.

Although the trial court could have stopped there, it also concluded that Cardoso failed to meet prong two of the Kinney test. In Kinney, the Florida Supreme Court, hearkening to the federal precedent from which Kinney itself emanates, stated that "[i]mportant considerations [in examining prong two] are the relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive." Kinney, 674 So.2d at 89. The generalized affidavit filed by Cardoso in this matter falls far short of the quality and quantity of proof necessary to meet the "private interests" prong of Kinney. See Kinney, 674 So.2d at 91 (private interests presuppose demonstrable level of adequate access to evidence, enforceability of judgments, presence of witnesses, and practicalities in the proposed favored forum). We therefore likewise conclude that the trial court did[*1251] not abuse its discretion in denying Cardoso's motion on this ground.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

1 Cardoso makes much of the apparent fact that the transaction guaranteed by him was a renewal of one or more previous loans or a line of credit between the lender and borrower. We consider this to be irrelevant for our purposes.
2 We similarly dispose of Cardoso's eleventh hour reliance at the evidentiary hearing on a purported additional forum selection clause in what the Bank's counsel conceded was a "separate but related" obligation. The clause clearly states that it applies only to "any issue arising from this agreement" referring to the belatedly submitted agreement.