DAVIS V. STARFISH

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, A.D. 2004 BILLY WAYNE DAVIS, NEWPORT HARBOUR, a Bahamian company and E. DAWSON ROBERTS, Appellants, vs. ** ** ** ** STARFISH VENTURES LIMITED, Appellee. ** ** CASE NO. 3D03-2538 LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 03-14418 Opinion filed April 21, 2004. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Stuart M. Simons, Judge. George M. Evans, for appellant. Alvarez, Armas & Borron, for appellee. Before COPE, GERSTEN and RAMIREZ, JJ. PER CURIAM. Billy Wayne Davis, Newport Harbour Limited and E. Dawson Roberts appeal an order denying their motion to dismiss on the basis, inter alia, of the statute of limitations and the economic loss rule. We dismiss that part of the appeal as being from a non- final, non-appealable order. See Couture Farms v. Triton International, Inc., 682 So. 2d 578, 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). The appellants appeal the trial court s order denying the motion to dismiss based on a claim of improper venue, which was treated as a motion to dismiss for lack of long-arm jurisdiction. The appellants also appeal the order denying their motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061, the forum non conveniens rule. See generally Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(A), (C) (i). We find no error and affirm. See Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499, 502 (Fla. 1989); § 48.193(1)(b), Fla. Stat. Affirmed in part; appeal dismissed in part. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.