Cortez v. Palace Resorts, Inc.
123 So. 3d 1085
Fla.2013Background
- Plaintiff Shahla M. Rabie Cortez, a U.S. (California) citizen, alleges she was sexually assaulted at a Moon Palace resort in Cancún after attending a timeshare presentation and sued for negligent vacation packaging against three Florida-headquartered defendants (Palace Resorts, Inc.; Palace Resorts, LLC; Tradco, Ltd., Inc.).
- The Florida defendants have their principal place of business and corporate operations (marketing, package design, customer service, records) in Miami, Florida.
- Defendants moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, arguing Mexico is a more convenient and adequate forum; the trial court granted dismissal, giving less deference to plaintiff’s Florida forum choice because she is an out-of-state resident.
- The Third District affirmed, concluding Mexico was an adequate alternative and that Rabie Cortez (a California resident) was not entitled to a strong presumption favoring her Florida forum choice.
- The Florida Supreme Court granted review, holding the Third District misapplied Kinney by (1) denying the strong presumption to a U.S. plaintiff who chose a U.S. forum and (2) failing to account that the alleged negligent conduct occurred in Florida at defendants’ Miami headquarters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a U.S. plaintiff who files in Florida is entitled to the strong presumption in the forum non conveniens analysis | Rabie Cortez: as a U.S. citizen filing against U.S. corporations in Florida, she is entitled to the strong presumption favoring her forum choice | Defendants: an out-of-state (California) plaintiff is entitled to less deference; Mexico is more convenient | Court: Strong presumption applies to U.S. plaintiffs choosing a U.S. forum; Third District erred in denying it |
| Whether Mexico is an adequate alternative forum for the negligent-vacation-packaging claim | Rabie Cortez: Mexican law may not recognize the asserted cause of action; alternative forum may be inadequate or require obscure causes of action | Defendants: Mexico is an adequate, available forum where the assault occurred | Court: Adequacy is doubtful here given expert assertions about lack of cognizable remedy in Mexico; dismissal improper |
| Whether private-interest factors (access to evidence, witnesses, defendants’ burden) favor dismissal | Rabie Cortez: key operational acts, records, and decisions occurred in Miami; defendants would not be substantially burdened by Florida litigation | Defendants: essential events occurred in Mexico; Mexico is more convenient | Court: Private factors favor plaintiff or do not strongly favor defendants; Third District erred by focusing on Mexico alone |
| Whether public-interest factors and balance of equities support dismissal | Rabie Cortez: Florida has an interest in adjudicating harms originating in Florida and in providing U.S. citizens access to U.S. courts | Defendants: Florida courts are not the optimal forum given the locus of the assault | Court: Florida’s public interest in regulating conduct originating in state and protecting access to U.S. courts weighs against dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinney Sys., Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 674 So.2d 86 (Fla. 1996) (adopts four-step federal forum non conveniens test and strong presumption for plaintiff’s forum choice)
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1947) (plaintiff’s forum choice should rarely be disturbed unless balance strongly favors defendant)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1981) (foreign plaintiffs receive less deference in federal forum non conveniens analysis)
- SME Racks, Inc. v. Sistemas Mecanicos Para Electronica, S.A., 382 F.3d 1097 (11th Cir. 2004) (courts should be thoroughly convinced that material injustice is manifest before denying U.S. citizens access to U.S. courts)
- Leon v. Millon Air, Inc., 251 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2001) (alternative forum is available if it can assert jurisdiction and service of process can be perfected)
- La Seguridad v. Transytur Line, 707 F.2d 1304 (11th Cir. 1983) (caution against denying U.S. citizens access to U.S. courts absent manifest material injustice)