Rolls-Royce, Inc. v. Garcia
77 So. 3d 855
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Consolidated action where Mexican plaintiffs sue four US-affiliated defendants over a Bell 407 helicopter crash in Morelia, Mexico (2006)
- Helicopter designed by Bell, engine by Rolls-Royce, components by Goodrich and Simmonds; owned by Mexican state; crash injured Garcia and two passengers; plaintiffs Mexican citizens
- Plaintiffs alleged design, manufacture, sale, inspection, maintenance, modification, and repair negligence and strict liability
- Rolls-Royce and co-defendants moved to dismiss for forum non conveniens; Florida is not connected to the case; Mexico is proposed as adequate alternate forum
- Trial court denied motion after Kinney factors analysis, preserving plaintiffs’ forum choice; appellate reversal ordered
- Court remanded with directions to grant dismissal, finding Florida forum inappropriate and Mexican forum appropriate
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mexico is an adequate and appropriate alternative forum | Kinney factors favor Florida due to witnesses | Mexico is an adequate, available forum; Florida lacks connections | Mexico is adequate; Florida forum not preferred |
| Private interests weighing of evidence, witnesses, and costs | Private interests favor Florida due to documents and counsel in Miami | Private interests favor Mexico given location of accident and witnesses there | Private interests weigh in favor of Mexico; Florida forum deference insufficient |
| Public interests and Florida’s connection to the case | Public interest supports Florida due to access and enforcement | Public interests tied to Florida are weak; no Florida nexus | Public interests favor Mexico; Florida’s connection is lacking |
| Whether trial court erred by aggregating all U.S. contacts rather than Florida-specific contacts | Court improperly aggregated U.S. contacts | Court appropriately considered relevant contacts | Court erred in aggregating U.S. contacts; should focus on Florida connection |
| Judicial discretion on Kinney factors when record is affidavits-based | Reasonable deference; proper analysis on record | Affidavits limit discretion; need de novo review for unaddressed factors | Affirmative need to address unaddressed Kinney factors; reversal warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 674 So.2d 86 (Fla. 1996) (establishes Kinney forum non conveniens standard with four factors)
- Hilton Int'l Co. v. Carrillo, 971 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (adopts federal Kinney framework; presumption against disturbing plaintiff’s forum choice)
- Rabie Cortez v. Palace Holdings, S.A., 66 So.3d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (presumption of deference reduced when no Florida contacts; affidavits reduce reliability of findings)
- Kerzner Int’l Resorts, Inc. v. Raines, 983 So.2d 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (Florida court considers Florida contacts, not U.S. contacts overall)
- Pearl Cruises v. Cohon, 728 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (rejects aggregating all U.S. contacts for Florida forum analysis)