Goldstein v. Hard Rock Cafe International (USA), Inc. , 519 F. App'x 653 ( 2013 )

Case: 12-15210 Date Filed: 05/20/2013 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-15210
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:12-cv-00148-GKS-KRS
DAVID GOLDSTEIN,
MARION GOLDSTEIN, spouse,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
HARD ROCK CAFE INTERNATIONAL (USA), INC.,
PALACE HOLDING, S.A. DE C.V.,
PALACE RESERVATIONS, S.A. DE C.V.,
d.b.a. Palace Resorts,
PALACE RESORTS TRAVEL, INC.,
INVERSIONES ZAHENA, S.A.,
HOLDING INTERNACIONAL, S.A. DE C.V.,
d.b.a. Hard Rock Hotel & Casino Punta Cana,
Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(May 20, 2013)
Case: 12-15210 Date Filed: 05/20/2013 Page: 2 of 6
Before HULL, JORDAN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
David and Marion Goldstein filed suit in the Middle District of Florida
against Hard Rock Cafe International (USA), Inc.; Palace Holding, S.A. de C.V.;
Palace Reservations, S.A. de C.V.; Palace Resorts Travel, Inc.; Inversiones
Zahena, S.A.; and Holding Internacional, S.A. de C.V., (collectively, the
defendants) based on injuries they sustained as a result of David Goldstein’s slip-
and-fall in the Dominican Republic.1 The district court granted the defendants’
motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens so that the case could be tried in
the Dominican Republic. After thorough review, we affirm.
David Goldstein slipped and fell on a walkway at the Hard Rock Hotel &
Casino Punta Cana (the Resort) in the Dominican Republic while a guest there.
The Goldsteins sued the defendants — who owned, operated, and managed the
Resort — for negligence, seeking damages for David Goldstein’s resulting injuries,
which necessitated knee-replacement surgery, and for Marion Goldstein’s
subsequent loss of consortium. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on
forum non conveniens, arguing that the suit should be tried in the Dominican
Republic. The district court granted the motion — on the condition that the
1
We grant the Goldsteins’ unopposed motion to amend the complaint to reflect the places of
incorporation and principal places of business of each of the defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653.
There is complete diversity of citizenship and, thus, the district court had jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332.
2
Case: 12-15210 Date Filed: 05/20/2013 Page: 3 of 6
defendants submit to the jurisdiction of a Dominican court, waive any statute of
limitations defense, and make witnesses and evidence available to the Goldsteins
— finding that the Dominican Republic was an available and adequate alternative
forum and the balance of private and public interest factors weighed heavily in
favor of dismissal. This is the Goldsteins’ appeal.
We review the district court’s decision to dismiss a suit based on forum non
conveniens for an abuse of discretion. SME Racks, Inc. v. Sistemas Mecanicos
Para Electronica, S.A., 382 F.3d 1097, 1100 (11th Cir. 2004). “[W]here the court
has considered all relevant public and private interest factors, and where its
balancing of these factors is reasonable, its decision deserves substantial
deference.” Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 257 (1981). To obtain
dismissal based on the inconvenience of the forum, defendants must “demonstrate
that (1) an adequate alternative forum is available, (2) the public and private
factors weigh in favor of dismissal, and (3) the plaintiff[s] can reinstate [their] suit
in the alternative forum without undue inconvenience or prejudice.” Leon v.
Millon Air, Inc., 251 F.3d 1305, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001). The Goldsteins do not
dispute that the Dominican Republic is an adequate alternative forum where they
may reinstate their suit, but they argue the district court abused its discretion in
dismissing their suit because it erroneously weighed the public and private factors.
3
Case: 12-15210 Date Filed: 05/20/2013 Page: 4 of 6
“[W]ith regard to the weighing of the private interests, the plaintiffs’ choice
of forum should rarely be disturbed unless the balance is strongly in favor of the
defendant.” SME Racks, Inc., 382 F.3d at 1101 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Relevant private factors include 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; . . . and all other practical problems that
make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” Piper Aircraft Co., 454
U.S. at 241 n.6 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The record supports the district court’s conclusion that the private factors
strongly support dismissal. Two doctors who treated David Goldstein shortly after
he fell cannot be compelled to testify in a U.S. court because they reside in the
Dominican Republic and are not employed by the defendants. See United States v.
Drogoul, 1 F.3d 1546, 1553 (11th Cir. 1993) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1783). Six other
potential witnesses reside in the Dominican Republic, although the Goldsteins
identified four potential witnesses who reside in the U.S. The district court
reasonably found that access to the witnesses in the Dominican Republic was more
important. The Goldsteins’ witnesses could only testify to the fall they witnessed,
which would likely be duplicative of David Goldstein’s testimony. The witnesses
in the Dominican Republic, on the other hand, are likely the only potential
witnesses who could testify to the maintenance history of the walkway area where
4
Case: 12-15210 Date Filed: 05/20/2013 Page: 5 of 6
Goldstein fell. The district court also found that documentary evidence is located
in the Dominican Republic, including the two doctors’ medical records which
cannot be subpoenaed from third-parties in the Dominican Republic.
The Goldsteins argue that the district court erroneously balanced the private
factors because it failed to consider the presumption in favor of a plaintiff’s forum
choice. The district court, however, explicitly stated that it “analyze[d] the private
interest factors in light of the presumption in favor of the Plaintiffs’ choice of
forum” and concluded that “the balance of the private interest factors . . .
outweighs the presumption for the Plaintiffs’ choice of forum.” The Goldsteins
also contend the district court failed to consider the financial hardship they would
suffer if they were required to bring suit in the Dominican Republic. But they do
not refute the district court’s conclusion that, because the Goldsteins’ witnesses
reside in New Jersey and would have to travel either to Florida or the Dominican
Republic for this suit, there would be little difference between travel costs and
inconveniences regardless of which forum was chosen.
The record also supports the district court’s conclusion that the public
factors weigh in favor of dismissal. Relevant public factors include “the local
interest in having localized controversies decided at home; the interest in having
the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the law that must govern
the action; the avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws, or in the
5
Case: 12-15210 Date Filed: 05/20/2013 Page: 6 of 6
application of foreign law; and the unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated
forum with jury duty.” Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 241 n.6 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Although they do not concede the point, the Goldsteins do not seriously
contest the district court’s well-reasoned conclusion that Dominican law would
probably apply. A Florida district court likely is not “at home” with Dominican
law, nor would a jury be familiar with applying this foreign law. And because the
slip-and-fall happened in the Dominican Republic, the district court correctly
considered the Dominican Republic’s significant interest in deciding a controversy
arising from occurrences on its own soil. 2
The district court considered and reasonably balanced the relevant public
and private interest factors. Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion in
dismissing this case based on forum non conveniens.
AFFIRMED.
2
The Goldsteins argue that the district court erred by not considering the U.S. interest in
providing a forum for U.S. citizen plaintiffs in its public-factor analysis. In its private-factor
analysis, the district court found that “the balance of the private interest factors . . . outweighs the
presumption for the Plaintiffs’ choice of forum.” Although we have indicated that the U.S.
interest in providing a forum for its citizens is a factor that should be considered when weighing
the public factors, we have never held that a district court abuses its discretion by failing to
discuss that factor in the public-factor analysis. See SME Racks, Inc., 382 F.3d at 1104. And the
Goldsteins have not demonstrated how express consideration of that factor again after careful
consideration in the private-factor analysis would change the result of the public-factor analysis.
6