Kinney factors in Florida

2022Co., 674 So. 2d 86 , 93–94 (Fla. 1996) (adopting federal forum non conveniens analysis, remanding to district court to “determine whether the trial court properly applied the federal doctrine as outlined here,” and explaining that this standard shall apply to all future proceedings); see also Sports Channel Ltd. v. Tabib, 323 So. 3d 336 , 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (affirming in part and reversing in part and remanding to permit the trial court to conduct the Kinney analysis). 2

2022Co., 674 So. 2d 86 , 93–94 (Fla. 1996) (adopting federal forum non conveniens analysis, remanding to district court to “determine whether the trial court properly applied the federal doctrine as outlined here,” and explaining that this standard shall apply to all future proceedings); see also Sports Channel Ltd. v. Tabib, 323 So. 3d 336 , 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (affirming in part and reversing in part and remanding to permit the trial court to conduct the Kinney analysis). 2

2013Corp. v. Provincial De Reaseguros C.A., 101 So.3d 385, 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012))); Levinson & Lichtman, LLP v. Levinson, 35 So.3d 182, 182-83 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Wood v. Bluestone, 9 So.3d 671, 673-74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Carenza v. Sun Int’l Hotels, Ltd., 699 So.2d 830, 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“Neither the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion nor its pronouncements during the hearing on the motion provide this court with enough information to determine whether the trial judge adequately considered each step of the Kinney test in reaching his conclusion.”).

2013Corp. v. Provincial De Reaseguros C.A., 101 So.3d 385, 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012))); Levinson & Lichtman, LLP v. Levinson, 35 So.3d 182, 182-83 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Wood v. Bluestone, 9 So.3d 671, 673-74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Carenza v. Sun Int’l Hotels, Ltd., 699 So.2d 830, 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“Neither the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion nor its pronouncements during the hearing on the motion provide this court with enough information to determine whether the trial judge adequately considered each step of the Kinney test in reaching his conclusion.”).

2024Abeid- Saba, 184 So. 3d at 599 (“The defendant attempting to dismiss the action on forum non conveniens grounds bears the burden of proof 5 on each element of the Kinney analysis.” (quoting Telemundo Network Grp., LLC v. Azteca Int’l Corp., 957 So. 2d 705, 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007))); see also Woods v. Nova Cos.

2024Abeid- Saba, 184 So. 3d at 599 (“The defendant attempting to dismiss the action on forum non conveniens grounds bears the burden of proof 5 on each element of the Kinney analysis.” (quoting Telemundo Network Grp., LLC v. Azteca Int’l Corp., 957 So. 2d 705, 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007))); see also Woods v. Nova Cos.

2020Tire, LLC v. Garcia, 991 So. 2d 912, 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (holding that where the trial court properly concluded that the alternative forum is unavailable or inadequate, it is unnecessary to consider the remaining Kinney factors because “the availability and adequacy of the alternative forum is a prerequisite to dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds”); Baranek v. Am.

2020Tire, LLC v. Garcia, 991 So. 2d 912, 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (holding that where the trial court properly concluded that the alternative forum is unavailable or inadequate, it is unnecessary to consider the remaining Kinney factors because “the availability and adequacy of the alternative forum is a prerequisite to dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds”); Baranek v. Am.

2024Cortez, 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 discretion in den

2021Although our Florida Supreme Court has made it clear that, in a case involving a U.S. resident-plaintiff and a foreign defendant, the defendant’s burden to overcome the presumption of the plaintiff’s U.S. choice of forum is “especially high,” Cortez v. Palace Resorts, Inc., 123 So. 3d 1085, 1096 (Fla. 2013), this does not relieve the trial court of its responsibility to assess the requisite Kinney factors to determine whether dismissal is nevertheless appropriate.

2021Id. 3 We affirm the trial court’s order denying the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and reverse that portion of the order denying the motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens and remand for the trial court to conduct the appropriate Kinney analysis, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

2021Id. 3 We affirm the trial court’s order denying the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and reverse that portion of the order denying the motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens and remand for the trial court to conduct the appropriate Kinney analysis, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

2011However, this Court has taken the position that "the Kinney standard has evolved into an abuse of discretion/de novo standard, depending on the extent of the trial judges [sic] analysis and whether the appellate record is sufficient to allow the reviewing court to reach its own conclusions." Telemundo Network Grp., LLC v. Azteca Int'l Corp., 957 So.2d 705, 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quoting Kawasaki Motors Corp. v. Foster, 899 So.2d 408, 410-11 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), citing Aerolineas Argentinas, S.A. v. Gimenez, 807 So.2d 111, 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (Sorondo, J., concurring) citing Bacardi v. De Li

2011However, this Court has taken the position that "the Kinney standard has evolved into an abuse of discretion/de novo standard, depending on the extent of the trial judges [sic] analysis and whether the appellate record is sufficient to allow the reviewing court to reach its own conclusions." Telemundo Network Grp., LLC v. Azteca Int'l Corp., 957 So.2d 705, 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quoting Kawasaki Motors Corp. v. Foster, 899 So.2d 408, 410-11 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), citing Aerolineas Argentinas, S.A. v. Gimenez, 807 So.2d 111, 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (Sorondo, J., concurring) citing Bacardi v. De Li

2024“A trial court's order denying a motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens is subject to reversal and remand as insufficient where . . . there is neither (1) ‘meaningful analysis’ in the order, nor (2) a transcript reflecting ‘an adequate analysis of the Kinney factors during the hearing itself[.]’” Camperos v. Estrella, 126 So. 3d 351, 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (quoting ABA Cap.

2024“A trial court's order denying a motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens is subject to reversal and remand as insufficient where . . . there is neither (1) ‘meaningful analysis’ in the order, nor (2) a transcript reflecting ‘an adequate analysis of the Kinney factors during the hearing itself[.]’” Camperos v. Estrella, 126 So. 3d 351, 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (quoting ABA Cap.

2019Belize Ltd., 739 So. 2d 617, 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (quoting Ciba-Geigy Ltd. v. Fish Peddler, Inc., 691 So. 2d 1111, 1118 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)); see Rolls-Royce, Inc., 77 So. 3d at 859 n.4; Ryder Sys., Inc. v. Davis, 997 So. 2d 1133, 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“Although we acknowledge that the presumption of correctness given to a trial court’s ruling is lessened where . . . the trial court’s findings are based on affidavits rather than live testimony, we still give substantial deference to the trial court’s decision, where its balancing of the Kinney factors is reasonable.” (quoting Bridgestone

2019Belize Ltd., 739 So. 2d 617, 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (quoting Ciba-Geigy Ltd. v. Fish Peddler, Inc., 691 So. 2d 1111, 1118 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)); see Rolls-Royce, Inc., 77 So. 3d at 859 n.4; Ryder Sys., Inc. v. Davis, 997 So. 2d 1133, 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“Although we acknowledge that the presumption of correctness given to a trial court’s ruling is lessened where . . . the trial court’s findings are based on affidavits rather than live testimony, we still give substantial deference to the trial court’s decision, where its balancing of the Kinney factors is reasonable.” (quoting Bridgestone

2019Belize Ltd., 739 So. 2d 617, 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (quoting Ciba-Geigy Ltd. v. Fish Peddler, Inc., 691 So. 2d 1111, 1118 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)); see Rolls-Royce, Inc., 77 So. 3d at 859 n.4; Ryder Sys., Inc. v. Davis, 997 So. 2d 1133, 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“Although we acknowledge that the presumption of correctness given to a trial court’s ruling is lessened where . . . the trial court’s findings are based on affidavits rather than live testimony, we still give substantial deference to the trial court’s decision, where its balancing of the Kinney factors is reasonable.” (quoting Bridgestone

2019Belize Ltd., 739 So. 2d 617, 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (quoting Ciba-Geigy Ltd. v. Fish Peddler, Inc., 691 So. 2d 1111, 1118 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)); see Rolls-Royce, Inc., 77 So. 3d at 859 n.4; Ryder Sys., Inc. v. Davis, 997 So. 2d 1133, 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“Although we acknowledge that the presumption of correctness given to a trial court’s ruling is lessened where . . . the trial court’s findings are based on affidavits rather than live testimony, we still give substantial deference to the trial court’s decision, where its balancing of the Kinney factors is reasonable.” (quoting Bridgestone

2011However, this Court has taken the position that "the Kinney standard has evolved into an abuse of discretion/de novo standard, depending on the extent of the trial judges [sic] analysis and whether the appellate record is sufficient to allow the reviewing court to reach its own conclusions." Telemundo Network Grp., LLC v. Azteca Int'l Corp., 957 So.2d 705, 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quoting Kawasaki Motors Corp. v. Foster, 899 So.2d 408, 410-11 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), citing Aerolineas Argentinas, S.A. v. Gimenez, 807 So.2d 111, 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (Sorondo, J., concurring) citing Bacardi v. De Li

2011However, this Court has taken the position that "the Kinney standard has evolved into an abuse of discretion/de novo standard, depending on the extent of the trial judges [sic] analysis and whether the appellate record is sufficient to allow the reviewing court to reach its own conclusions." Telemundo Network Grp., LLC v. Azteca Int'l Corp., 957 So.2d 705, 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quoting Kawasaki Motors Corp. v. Foster, 899 So.2d 408, 410-11 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), citing Aerolineas Argentinas, S.A. v. Gimenez, 807 So.2d 111, 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (Sorondo, J., concurring) citing Bacardi v. De Li

2024If “the record shows that both parties' positions on the Kinney factors were made abundantly clear during [the] hearing[ ], and were considered by the trial court,” then the trial court’s 5 “adequate analysis of the Kinney factors during the hearing itself can support affirmance of an otherwise insufficient order.” Id.

2024If “the record shows that both parties' positions on the Kinney factors were made abundantly clear during [the] hearing[ ], and were considered by the trial court,” then the trial court’s 5 “adequate analysis of the Kinney factors during the hearing itself can support affirmance of an otherwise insufficient order.” Id.

2011However, this Court has taken the position that "the Kinney standard has evolved into an abuse of discretion/de novo standard, depending on the extent of the trial judges [sic] analysis and whether the appellate record is sufficient to allow the reviewing court to reach its own conclusions." Telemundo Network Grp., LLC v. Azteca Int'l Corp., 957 So.2d 705, 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quoting Kawasaki Motors Corp. v. Foster, 899 So.2d 408, 410-11 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), citing Aerolineas Argentinas, S.A. v. Gimenez, 807 So.2d 111, 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (Sorondo, J., concurring) citing Bacardi v. De Li

2011However, this Court has taken the position that "the Kinney standard has evolved into an abuse of discretion/de novo standard, depending on the extent of the trial judges [sic] analysis and whether the appellate record is sufficient to allow the reviewing court to reach its own conclusions." Telemundo Network Grp., LLC v. Azteca Int'l Corp., 957 So.2d 705, 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quoting Kawasaki Motors Corp. v. Foster, 899 So.2d 408, 410-11 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), citing Aerolineas Argentinas, S.A. v. Gimenez, 807 So.2d 111, 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (Sorondo, J., concurring) citing Bacardi v. De Li

2013Corp. v. Provincial De Reaseguros C.A., 101 So.3d 385, 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012))); Levinson & Lichtman, LLP v. Levinson, 35 So.3d 182, 182-83 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Wood v. Bluestone, 9 So.3d 671, 673-74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Carenza v. Sun Int’l Hotels, Ltd., 699 So.2d 830, 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“Neither the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion nor its pronouncements during the hearing on the motion provide this court with enough information to determine whether the trial judge adequately considered each step of the Kinney test in reaching his conclusion.”).

2013Corp. v. Provincial De Reaseguros C.A., 101 So.3d 385, 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012))); Levinson & Lichtman, LLP v. Levinson, 35 So.3d 182, 182-83 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Wood v. Bluestone, 9 So.3d 671, 673-74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Carenza v. Sun Int’l Hotels, Ltd., 699 So.2d 830, 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“Neither the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion nor its pronouncements during the hearing on the motion provide this court with enough information to determine whether the trial judge adequately considered each step of the Kinney test in reaching his conclusion.”).

2009On the other hand, in Charles , where neither a hearing nor a written order existed to reveal the court’s application of the Kinney analysis, this Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. 916 So.2d at 1014 .

2009On the other hand, in Charles , where neither a hearing nor a written order existed to reveal the court’s application of the Kinney analysis, this Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. 916 So.2d at 1014 .

2007See Sun & Sea Estates, Ltd., Inc. v. Kelly, 707 So.2d 863, 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (although the trial court did not consider Kinney factors in denying plaintiffs' motion to dismiss based *108 on forum non conveniens, based on the record before the district court, it reviewed the trial court's order and concluded "that this case should and must be dismissed for forum non conveniens"); see also Kawasaki Motors Corp. v. Foster, 899 So.2d 408, 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (stating that review of the lower court's forum non conveniens decisions "has evolved into an abuse of discretion/de novo standard, d

2003See also Sun & Sea Estates, Ltd., Inc. v. Kelly, 707 So.2d 863, 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (appellate court, where trial court had failed to perform the Kinney analysis, reviewed record before it, and concluded that case be dismissed for forum non conve-niens.).

2024Abeid- Saba, 184 So. 3d at 599 (“The defendant attempting to dismiss the action on forum non conveniens grounds bears the burden of proof 5 on each element of the Kinney analysis.” (quoting Telemundo Network Grp., LLC v. Azteca Int’l Corp., 957 So. 2d 705, 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007))); see also Woods v. Nova Cos.

2024Abeid- Saba, 184 So. 3d at 599 (“The defendant attempting to dismiss the action on forum non conveniens grounds bears the burden of proof 5 on each element of the Kinney analysis.” (quoting Telemundo Network Grp., LLC v. Azteca Int’l Corp., 957 So. 2d 705, 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007))); see also Woods v. Nova Cos.

2024Cortez, 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 discretion in den

2004We 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).

2024Cortez, 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 discretion in den

2019Sybac Solar AG, Co. v. Falz, 174 So. 3d 383, 385-86 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).

2023Corp. v. Credinform Int’l, S.A., 225 So. 3d 377, 381 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (finding no abuse of discretion where “review of the record, including the transcript of the hearing, establishes that the trial court conducted a proper, adequate analysis” of the Kinney factors).

2023Corp. v. Credinform Int’l, S.A., 225 So. 3d 377, 381 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (finding no abuse of discretion where “review of the record, including the transcript of the hearing, establishes that the trial court conducted a proper, adequate analysis” of the Kinney factors).

2019Belize Ltd., 739 So. 2d 617, 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (quoting Ciba-Geigy Ltd. v. Fish Peddler, Inc., 691 So. 2d 1111, 1118 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)); see Rolls-Royce, Inc., 77 So. 3d at 859 n.4; Ryder Sys., Inc. v. Davis, 997 So. 2d 1133, 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“Although we acknowledge that the presumption of correctness given to a trial court’s ruling is lessened where . . . the trial court’s findings are based on affidavits rather than live testimony, we still give substantial deference to the trial court’s decision, where its balancing of the Kinney factors is reasonable.” (quoting Bridgestone

2019Belize Ltd., 739 So. 2d 617, 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (quoting Ciba-Geigy Ltd. v. Fish Peddler, Inc., 691 So. 2d 1111, 1118 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)); see Rolls-Royce, Inc., 77 So. 3d at 859 n.4; Ryder Sys., Inc. v. Davis, 997 So. 2d 1133, 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“Although we acknowledge that the presumption of correctness given to a trial court’s ruling is lessened where . . . the trial court’s findings are based on affidavits rather than live testimony, we still give substantial deference to the trial court’s decision, where its balancing of the Kinney factors is reasonable.” (quoting Bridgestone

2011Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Carter, 951 So.2d 105, 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (concluding that although the trial court failed to address the Kinney factors, because the record was sufficiently developed and the facts relative to the issue of forum non conveniens were basically undisputed, remand was unnecessary).

2011Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Carter, 951 So.2d 105, 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (concluding that although the trial court failed to address the Kinney factors, because the record was sufficiently developed and the facts relative to the issue of forum non conveniens were basically undisputed, remand was unnecessary).

2021Suppliers, Inc. v. Incubacol, S.A.S., 313 So. 3d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (declining invitation to apply Kinney for the first time on appeal because neither the order nor the transcript of hearing established trial court engaged in Kinney analysis); Johnny’s Pool Super Ctr., Inc. v. Foreverpools Caribbean, LLC, 307 So. 3d 832 , 835, n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (observing that “generally, an order denying a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens will be reversed 2 where neither the order nor the hearing transcript establishes that the trial court engaged in a meaningful analysis of the relevant, r

2021Suppliers, Inc. v. Incubacol, S.A.S., 313 So. 3d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (declining invitation to apply Kinney for the first time on appeal because neither the order nor the transcript of hearing established trial court engaged in Kinney analysis); Johnny’s Pool Super Ctr., Inc. v. Foreverpools Caribbean, LLC, 307 So. 3d 832 , 835, n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (observing that “generally, an order denying a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens will be reversed 2 where neither the order nor the hearing transcript establishes that the trial court engaged in a meaningful analysis of the relevant, r

2019Corp. v. Provincial de Reaseguros C.A., 101 So. 3d 385, 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)); Levinson & Lichtman, LLP v. Levinson, 35 So. 3d 182, 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (concluding the trial court abused its discretion in granting a rule 1.061 motion “because neither the order granting the motion nor the hearing transcript on the motion demonstrates the trial court performed a Kinney analysis”).

2019Corp. v. Provincial de Reaseguros C.A., 101 So. 3d 385, 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)); Levinson & Lichtman, LLP v. Levinson, 35 So. 3d 182, 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (concluding the trial court abused its discretion in granting a rule 1.061 motion “because neither the order granting the motion nor the hearing transcript on the motion demonstrates the trial court performed a Kinney analysis”).

2010Nonetheless, the court must still engage in the Kinney analysis, either at the hearing or in its written order of denial.”) (internal citations omitted); Strauss v. Allstate Ins. *183 Co., 855 So.2d 167, 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (reversing and remanding for a determination of the Kinney factors when the record does not demonstrate the trial court conducted the requisite analysis of the four factors before dismissing appellant’s action); Carenza v. Sun Int’l Hotels, Ltd., 699 So.2d 830, 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“Neither the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion nor its pronouncements d

2010Nonetheless, the court must still engage in the Kinney analysis, either at the hearing or in its written order of denial.”) (internal citations omitted); Strauss v. Allstate Ins. *183 Co., 855 So.2d 167, 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (reversing and remanding for a determination of the Kinney factors when the record does not demonstrate the trial court conducted the requisite analysis of the four factors before dismissing appellant’s action); Carenza v. Sun Int’l Hotels, Ltd., 699 So.2d 830, 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“Neither the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion nor its pronouncements d

1999Cf. Carenza v. Sun Int'l Hotels, Ltd., 699 So.2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(reversing an order granting a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens where the trial court failed to enumerate its findings pursuant to the four-step Kinney analysis and where there were no sworn allegations in support of the motion, compounding the court's problems in determining how the trial court reached its decision); Graham v. Graham, 648 So.2d 814, 815-16 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)("A transfer of venue based on convenience is improper where no affidavits or other sworn proof support the motion.").

1997"A transfer of venue based on convenience is improper where no affidavits or other sworn proof support the motion." Graham v. Graham, 648 So.2d 814, 815-16 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); see Davis v. Florida Power Corp., 492 So.2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (where allegations of unsworn motion to dismiss or transfer were never established by sworn proof, the trial court had no evidence on which to base its decision to transfer venue).

2011However, this Court has taken the position that "the Kinney standard has evolved into an abuse of discretion/de novo standard, depending on the extent of the trial judges [sic] analysis and whether the appellate record is sufficient to allow the reviewing court to reach its own conclusions." Telemundo Network Grp., LLC v. Azteca Int'l Corp., 957 So.2d 705, 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quoting Kawasaki Motors Corp. v. Foster, 899 So.2d 408, 410-11 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), citing Aerolineas Argentinas, S.A. v. Gimenez, 807 So.2d 111, 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (Sorondo, J., concurring) citing Bacardi v. De Li

2011However, this Court has taken the position that "the Kinney standard has evolved into an abuse of discretion/de novo standard, depending on the extent of the trial judges [sic] analysis and whether the appellate record is sufficient to allow the reviewing court to reach its own conclusions." Telemundo Network Grp., LLC v. Azteca Int'l Corp., 957 So.2d 705, 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quoting Kawasaki Motors Corp. v. Foster, 899 So.2d 408, 410-11 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), citing Aerolineas Argentinas, S.A. v. Gimenez, 807 So.2d 111, 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (Sorondo, J., concurring) citing Bacardi v. De Li

2019“In that situation, this court has the latitude to address the previously-unaddressed Kinney factors for the first time on appeal in the interest of judicial economy and efficiency.” Id.

2019Belize Ltd., 739 So. 2d 617, 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (quoting Ciba-Geigy Ltd. v. Fish Peddler, Inc., 691 So. 2d 1111, 1118 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)); see Rolls-Royce, Inc., 77 So. 3d at 859 n.4; Ryder Sys., Inc. v. Davis, 997 So. 2d 1133, 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“Although we acknowledge that the presumption of correctness given to a trial court’s ruling is lessened where . . . the trial court’s findings are based on affidavits rather than live testimony, we still give substantial deference to the trial court’s decision, where its balancing of the Kinney factors is reasonable.” (quoting Bridgestone

2013Id. at 964 (Rothenberg, J., dissenting).

2013Id. at 964 (Rothenberg, J., dissenting).