Aaron Data Systems, Inc. v. GLD International, Inc., 0:17-cv-62111

Plaintiffs ADSI (Florida corp.) and OZcoin (Texas corp.) are internet-based entities that allege defendants (multiple individuals, GLD Int’l, and Australian Citigold) misappropriated a 100% gold‑backed cryptocurrency project and released OZcoin’s security interest in 100,000 oz of Australian gold.
Key events and contracts (licensing, gold certificates/security agreement, and lien releases) were negotiated, executed, or centered in Australia; gold was mined and stored in Australia (Perth Mint).
Plaintiffs sued in S.D. Fla. asserting state law claims (breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, aiding and abetting, FDUTPA, injunctive relief) against primarily Australian actors; OZcoin launched marketing in Austin, TX.
Defendants moved to dismiss for forum non conveniens and for lack of personal jurisdiction; the court deferred jurisdictional questions and addressed forum non conveniens.
The magistrate judge found Australia an adequate and available alternative forum, afforded little deference to Plaintiffs’ U.S. incorporations given minimal U.S. presence, and concluded private and public factors favored Australia.
Recommendation: grant dismissal on forum non conveniens and require any new suit on the same subject matter to be filed in Australia.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an adequate and available alternative forum exists	Australia is not necessary; Florida is proper forum	Australia is adequate and defendants are amenable to process there	Australia is an adequate and available alternative forum; requirement met
Deference to plaintiffs’ choice of forum	Plaintiffs (U.S. corporations) deserve strong presumption of convenience	Presumption is minimal because corporations lack U.S. presence; incorporation is formalistic	Deference to forum choice is weak/minimal given Plaintiffs’ limited U.S. contacts
Private‑interest factors (witnesses, documents, cost)	Some U.S. witnesses and records justify litigation in Florida	Majority of critical witnesses and documents are in Australia and beyond U.S. compulsory process	Private factors favor Australia (witnesses/docs inaccessible/expensive to bring to Florida)
Public‑interest and choice‑of‑law factors	Florida forum appropriate; FDUTPA applies	Australian courts have greater interest; torts and property centered in Australia; foreign law governs	Public factors and choice‑of‑law issues favor Australia; comity supports dismissal

Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007) (court may decide forum non conveniens before resolving jurisdictional issues)
Tazoe v. Airbus S.A.S., 631 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2011) (elements required to dismiss on forum non conveniens)
Leon v. Million Air, Inc., 251 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2001) (private interest factors for forum non conveniens)
Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., 578 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2009) (adequacy of alternative forum standard)
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (alternative forum inadequate only in rare circumstances)
Kolawole v. Sellers, 863 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 2017) (evidence to show availability of foreign forum)
U.S.O. v. Mizuho Holding Co., 547 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2008) (limited deference where U.S. incorporation is formal only)
Magnin v. Teledyne Continental Motors, 91 F.3d 1424 (11th Cir. 1996) (contingency fee availability is weak factor in forum non conveniens analysis)
SME Racks, Inc. v. Sistemas Mecanicos Para Electronica, S.A., 382 F.3d 1097 (11th Cir. 2004) (public factors to consider in forum non conveniens)
Grupo Televisa v. Telemundo Communications, 485 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2007) (Restatement choice‑of‑law principles for torts and corporate internal affairs)
Ford v. Brown, 319 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2003) (comity favors allowing foreign courts to regulate conduct of their citizens)