Rabie Cortez v. Palace Holdings, S.A. De C.V., 66 So. 3d 959

Cortez, a California resident, vacationed at Moon Palace in Cancun and was sexually assaulted by a masseuse.
She sued Florida-defendant Palace Resorts, Inc. and related entities in Miami-Dade County for negligent vacation packaging and vicarious liability; Costco Travel was later dismissed.
Defendants moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens, arguing Mexico is an available and adequate forum; the trial court granted the motion following Kinney analysis.
The court relied on affidavits and expert reports; the order concluded Mexico is adequate and the Kinney factors favor dismissal.
On appeal, the Third District affirmed, applying Kinney and emphasizing deference to trial court discretion, while a concurring-dissent criticized the approach and evidence.
Key issues include availability/adequacy of Mexico as an alternate forum, private/public interest factors, and the burden of proof on the moving party.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Availability and adequacy of the foreign forum	Cortez contends Quintana Roo is available and adequate for her claims.	Defendants contended Quintana Roo is available and adequate to resolve the action.	Mexico was not shown as an adequate/available forum based on record; order vacated for this issue.
Private interests weighing	Cortez argues Florida forum choice deserves deference; private factors favor Florida.	Defendants contend private interests favor Mexico due to witnesses, documents, and location.	Private interests favored Mexico; the trial court did not abuse discretion in considering these factors.
Burden of proof under Kinney	Plaintiff maintains moving party bears burden to prove adequacy and convenience of alternate forum.	Defendants assert they carried Kinney's burden through affidavits and evidence.	The burden was not met due to reliance on defective/contradicted evidence; remand or reversal warranted.
Public interest considerations	Public interests should favor Florida given ties to the Florida-defendants and Florida law.	Mexico's public interest could be weighed if adequate forum existed and private factors balanced.	Public interest factors would support Florida, but since adequacy was not established, discussion was unnecessary.

Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 674 So.2d 86 (Fla. 1996) (four-factor Kinney test for forum non conveniens; availability, private, public interests, and ability to reinstate)
Ryder System, Inc. v. Davis, 997 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (abuse of discretion standard; live affidavits vs. live testimony context)
Bridgestone/Firestone N. Am. Tire, LLC v. Garcia, 991 So.2d 912 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (affirming deference to trial court's Kinney factor balancing when record based on affidavits)
Hilton Int'l Co. v. Carrillo, 971 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (adequacy/availability and forum non conveniens considerations in Kinney framework)
Ciba-Geigy, Ltd. v. Fish Peddler, Inc., 691 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (adequacy of foreign forum; significant connection to forum considerations)
Tananta v. Cruise Ships Catering & Servs. Int'l, N.V., 909 So.2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (foreign forum connection and corporate operations considerations)
Kerzner Int'l Resorts, Inc. v. Raines, 983 So.2d 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (ties to forum considerations in private/public interest balancing)
Resorts Int'l, Inc. v. Spinola, 705 So.2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (foreign forum adequacy and access to remedies in Kinney context)
Kawasaki Motors Corp. v. Foster, 899 So.2d 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (public interest and forum non conveniens; cross-jurisdictional considerations)