SME Racks, Inc. v. Sistemas Mecanicos Para Electronica, S.A.

Thе contract was executed in Spain and BLACK, Before BARKETT and provided parties that “[b]oth submit and *, STAHL Judges. Circuit refer Spanish themselves to law and to any disputes may settle arise between BARKETT, Judge: Circuit them aas result of this contract.” (“SME Racks, Racks”) SME Inc. and products The were manufactured in (“Val- Systems, Valtec Information Inc. Florida, Spain shipped and payment and tec”), two Florida corporations, and Rafael goods was sent. When the were found to (“Castro”), citizen,1 A. Castro a Florida defective, Sistemas Mecánicos sent a appeal the dismissal of their suit against a replacement shipment. Spanish corporation, Castro claimed Sistemas Mecánicos Electrónica, (“Sistemas shiрment that this also Para contained defective S.A. Mecáni- cos”), arising purchase products. consequently out of Castro alleg- their filed a di- edly goods. defective question ap- versity on action in federal court alleging nu- peal is whether the district court abused merous contract and tort claims.3 * Stahl, Honorable Norman H. United States Complaint, 3.In its Second Amended SME Circuit, Judge sitting by- Circuit for the Racks has asserted First claims for: fraud in the inducement; purchase agree- designation. rescission of ment; promissory estoppel; quasi-con- Appellants collectively 1. bewill referred to meruit; enrichment; tract/quantum unjust "SME Racks.” negligent misrepresentation; negligent de- manufacture, sign, inspection; nеgligent and adopted The district court in whole the Re- assembly, inspection, packing, storage; port magistrate and Recommendation of the agreement; express breach of oral breach of convenience, judge. For we refer to the Re- warranty; duty good breach of faith and port as if it opinion. dealing. were the district court’s fair all judge must consider relevant the trial moved for dismissal Mecánicos

Sistemas interest, conveniens. Af- non grounds on of courts could Spanish determining strong presumption ter the balance alterna- and available adequate initial fo- provide disturbing plaintiffs’ against forum,4 court concluded tive finds this judge rum choice. If the trial factors were convеnience to be balance because witnesses equipoise near must equipoise, or near he equipoise both Florida were located evidence or not factors then determine whether court then found The district Spain. in favor of tip the balance factors, “particular- public convenience in a forum.5 a trial will have to the Court ly the fact Id. at 1307. strongly in fa- weigh apply Spanish law— conveniens non on vor of dismissal forum out in detail Supreme Court set The district court Report 8. grounds.” Gilbert, 330 U.S. Corporation v. Oil Gulf motion and Mecanicos’s granted Sistemas (1947), 839, 501, 1055 91 L.Ed. S.Ct. appeal. Racks filed SME balancing to be considered public and interests. The Court private OF REVIEW STANDARD explained: non con- A court’s considered, An interest to be and “may be reversed veniens determination likely pressed, to be most is the one a of has been clear abuse only when there litigant. Impor- interest of the private discretion; the court has considered where are the relative ease tant considerations fac private and public all relevant proof; availability of access to sources of tors, balancing of these fac and where its of compulsory process of for attendance reasonable, its decision deserves tors is at- unwilling, obtaining and the of cost Co. Piper deference.” substantial Aircraft witnesses; possibili- willing, tendance of 257, 252, Reyno, if ty premises, view of thе view would (1981). abus court “[T]he 70 L.Ed.2d action; and all appropriate be it fails to balance the es its discretion when that make trial practical problems other v. Tran Seguridad factors.” La relevant easy, expeditious inexpen- a case (11th Line, 1304, 1308 sytur Cir. may questions as to sive. There also be 1983). Furthermore, “where the if one is enforceability judgment of a advantages of weigh does not the relative weigh The court will relative obtained. forums but considers respective to fair trial. advantages and obstacles one, it has disadvantages abused not, plaintiff may It is often said discretion.” Id. at 1307. forum, by choice of an inconvenient DISCUSSION “harass,” “vex,” “oppress” or the defen- expense him or by inflicting upon dant for dis considering In a motion necessary right to his own non conve- trouble grounds missal on of bal- niens, But unless the pursue remedy. his ones, public consider provide independent tant” than courts should Spanish courts That adequate is not at issue alternative forum factors "in all cases.” both appeal. Air, Inc., in this Leon v. Millon Cir.2001) (internal omitted). citations although "private 5. We have clarified that impor- generally more factors are considered H01 strongly Id. S.Ct. 839. This anee is defen- dant, plaintiff’s choice in favor of the initial forum of forum rarely be disturbed. in balancing should choice interests is at its strongest when the are also have a Factors of citizens, residents, corporations Adminis- of this place aрplying the doctrine. Air, Inc., country. for courts when Leon v. Millon trative difficulties follow (11th Cir.2001) (“[BJalanc- up congested centers litigation piled F.3d origin. being handled at its ing requires instead determining not to Jury duty ought is a burden parties, affording the convenience of the people of a commu- imposed upon strong domestic ‘a presumption’ nity litiga- no relation to the which has sufficiently that their forum choice is con In cases which touch the affairs of tion. venient, presumption apply and weaker for hold- many persons, there is reason ing brought by foreign plain in cases view and reach ing the trial their tiffs.”). parts than in remote of the coun- rather Supreme While the Court has been clear report try they whеre can learn of it that “dismissal should not be automatical- having only. There is local interest ly plaintiff barred when a [domestic] has at home. localized controversies decided forum,” filed suit in home Piper his Air- too, appropriateness, in hav- There is 23, Co. 454 U.S. at 255 n. craft in ing diversity the trial of a case a added),6 (emphasis 252 in this Circuit we forum that is at home with the state law long have mandated that district courts govern rather than must “ ‘require positive unusually evidence of having a court in some other forum un- circumstances, extreme and should be laws, tangle problems in conflict of thoroughly injus- convinced that material in law to itself. exercising any tice is manifest before such 508-09, (emphasis 67 839 S.Ct. may deny discretion as to a exist United added). citizen access to the courts of this States

A Private Interest Factors country.’” Seguridad, La 707 F.2d at clear, (quoting 1308 n. 7 Burt v. Isthmus Dev. As the Gilbert Court made (5th Co., 353, Cir.1955)7); of 357 see regard weighing with Ltd., interests, plaintiffs’ Humphrey Cayman, choice of forum also Lehman v. Cir.1983) (requiring F.2d rarely should be disturbed “unless the bal 342 standard); strongly Founding ance is in favor of the defendant.” same Church of full, Supreme in his forum. As al- 6. In Court stated that: has suit home filed Koster, ways, sug- conveniences if the balance of any balancing "[i]n In we stated that conveniences, showing gests in forum would of a real of conven- that trial the chosen plaintiff ience a who has sued in his unnecessarily burdensome for the defen- normally outweigh court, home forum will proper. dant dismissal is may inсonvenience the defendant have Co., Piper 454 U.S. at 255 n. Aircraft correctly shown.” As District Court omitted). (internal citations S.Ct. opinion, noted in its the lower federal routinely given weight a courts have less to Prichard, City Bonner v. In foreign plaintiffs A citi- choice forum. (en (11th Cir.1981) banc), given choice not be zen's forum should adopted binding prece- Eleventh Circuit dispositive weight, however. Citizens or handed down dent all Fifth Circuit ‍‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‍decisions residents deserve somewhat more deference September prior to the close of business on foreign plaintiffs, than but dismissal should 30, 1981. automatically plaintiff not be barred when (for reference, F.2d follows ease of we have Verlag, 536 Scientology v. (D.C.Cir.1976) (same). paragraphs): numbered the vate interests. make clear that this fest” before reference to the from this applied specifically ly 707 F.2d at 1308 to convinced that material ent and that the our rule First, choice articulate the relevant standards and failed its extreme circumstances” must be apply any presumption discussion, the district court failed of forum in the While country’s “positive ousting choice of forum also fails to Id. at 1307. court must be the district court failed n. 7. in when courts. La introductory portion evidence of unusual favor of domestic injustice is mani to recognize “thoroughly Seguridad, referenced plaintiffs’ analysis. favor of is to be plaintiff court’s pres pri to tions took are located in nesses who transfer proоf, ability to obtain shipped relative located in ^[3] chandise sive. da are located dants’ da on at least one occasion to ^[2] of a case other ^[1] merchandise, Witnesses who examined the mer- allegedly However, Relevant practical representatives ease to Florida and are when it easy, expeditious, Florida, place Spain shipped defective problems Spain. Additionally, weighing as well as Florida. access is the fact that wit- some of the Florida, and manufactured factors include the unloaded in Flori- witnesses, traveled to Flori- that make trial products to Additionally, Defendants, and Defen- sources negotiate. favor of currently inexpen- negotia- and all werе Second, even if we were to assume that light alleged, of the fact that Plaintiffs correctly the district court understood the part, that the merchandise was defec- standard, proper legal manufactured, the district court tively may it be neces- in presumption never mentions the sary to examine manufac- Defendants’ incorporates pre- facilities, of the the turing or in which are located sumption actually into its calculus once it Spain. Finally, documentary the evi- private in the engages weighing interests. dence is located in both Florida and Indeed, Report the makes clear that the Spain, and some of it in Spanish. district court entirely failed to consider ^[4] The Court concludes that the pri- presumption the in favor of the plaintiffs’ vate convenience factors are at or near analysis choice of forum its at all. only If the equipoise. Court considered factors, only looking [sic] those without establishing After that an adequate and factors, at the interest then the courts, Spanish available forum existed in Court would conclude that trial in either opinion the district court turned to balanc- Spain forum—this Court or be —would ing private the interest factors. In deter- However, equally inconvenient. because mining private that the convenience fac- private the interest factors are at or equipoise, tors were at or near the district equipoise, near the Court must consider court focused on factors related to the interest factors. practical problems that make “trial of a (internal Report punc- at 3-4 citation and easy, expeditious, case inexpensive,” and omitted). tuation such as where evidence and witnesses factors, are Applying Report located. these both This section of the follows the equally test, fora were found to stating be inconvenient. standard format of applying full, In portion Report this of the reads as test circumstances

H03 ¶ 1, thereby reaching equal. Corp., a conclusion. In See Oil and U.S. at Gulf (“[U]nless court set out the test that the district 67 S.Ct. 839 the balance is namely analysis, guided defendants], “[r]elevаnt strongly in favor of the private factors include the relative ease plaintiffs’] choice of forum rarely should ability to obtain proof, access to sources of disturbed.”). Thus, be for the district witnesses, practical all problems other applied presumption court to have easy, expeditious, that make trial of a case determining private that the fac- interest Nothing in this state- inexpensive.” tors at or near equipoise, were plain- ment of the rule indicates that court silently would have had to determine given substantial deference tiffs’ choice is that a trial in sufficiently Florida was more weighing private interest factors. Spain inconvenient than a trial in in order ¶¶ appliеd In district court the test 2-3 the to counterbalance the in favor framed, focusing only on as was factors plaintiffs’ choice of forum. problems that practical related to the theory simply This cannot be reconciled easy, expeditious, ‍‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‍make “trial of case explication with the district court’s of its inexpensive.” Report sug- offers no logic own reason the gestion plain- that the court accorded the —the were, view, in its at or equi- near any analysis. tiffs’ choice deference ¶ 4, poise was because Finally, in the district court concluded “either forum—this Spain Court or equally interest factors were or incon- —would equipoise light near because “trial either fo- vеnient.” In language, this Spain rum—this be only way Court could have been —would sum, In equally inconvenient.” there is applied pro- is to read the district court’s simply opinion, no hint from the “equally nouncement that both forums are factors, inconvenient” as hand short for: “the strong pre- considered Spanish forum is more convenient than sumption plain- favor of the domestic forum, weighed against but when tiffs’ choice of forum. in favor of the forum, choice of the two can be understood any speculate

Nor is there basis to equally inconvenient.” While there is a court to simply failed mention review, deferential standard of we need section, presumption application in its conjecture. engage in such The dis- presump- but nеvertheless considered the simply trict court found that the conven- presumption tion and determined that the equal and failed ience factors were about any presumption was If defeated.8 exists (never in of the weigh presumption favor plaintiffs’ in favor of the choice plaintiffs into the balance. This failure is presumption requiring “positive mind a ev- Segu- of discretion. See La a clear abuse unusually idence of extreme circum- (“[T]he ridad, 707 F.2d at 1307 court abus- upsetting plaintiffs’ stances” before choice), es its when it fails to balance the then definition the discretion factors.”).9 choice must win if all other factors are relevant ("|T]he Judge suggests See Dissent 9. Black’s dissent that our in- sensible 1107 terprеtation way conclu- to understand the district court's opens problems regard- a Pandora's Box of were at or near sion that the interests ing the review of a district court's strong equipoise that in is Suppose per- non conveniens decision. 51 partly favor of domestic was defeat- Spain, 49 cent of the evidence were in ed, ignored.”). it was not that strong percent were in Florida —would 1104 adjudi- and its courts exist as much for the

B. Public Interest Factors for cation of its citizens’ controversies as appro- and remand are Because reversal laws.”). the enforcement of its Further- solely upon based the district court’s priate more, sovereign that a it is clear has a all the relevant failure to balance very strong interest its citizens are when factors, not determine interest we need injury on allegedly victims and the occurs again the district court abused its whether See, Aircraft, e.g., Piper home soil. 454 public weighing discretion in 252, 70 419 U.S. L.Ed.2d Nevertheless, we feel it useful to factors. (1981) (finding strong- that had a Scotland express some concern that court public interest factors the district er interest than the United States hear- strong failed to consider the United States’ ing part the case in because accident “[t]he providing a forum for this interests airspace” occurred “[a]ll litigation. Scottish”); decedents were Satz v. Douglas Corp., McDonnell “Relevant interest factors (11th Cir.2001) (holding Argenti- in decid sovereigns’ include the in deciding dispute na’s interest Panama, ing dispute.” Republic v. stronger than the where all United States S.A., Holdings (Luxembourg) BCCI a plane Argentin- the victims of crash were (11th Cir.1997). F.3d While the plane Argentina). ean and the crashed in recognized that Florida had Thus, in this the United States has a litigation, an failed to strong providing interest in a forum for its Yet, recognize any federal interest. we grievances against allegedly an citizens’ a strong have been clear that is “[t]here predatory foreign actively business making plain federal interest sure harm gener solicited business caused within tiffs who are United States citizens ally for the home forum. get to choose American forum suit, bringing having rather than their case distinguish These factors this сase jurisdiction.”

relegated to a Esfeld Crociere, S.P.A., from other cases where we found that the Costa Burt, Cir.2002); weighed interest factors favor of see also (“This dismissal because of the of for historically F.2d at 356 nation has Moreover, eign applica- been most solicitous of its citizens’ welfare law.10 while the 7. What before in favor of domestic us is case where the unequivocally retaining district court found that both juris- tilt the balance in equally yet fora were inconvenient and deter- percent? per- diction? What about 52 mined that the interest factors were at percent? cent? 60 In the non conve- equipoise. or near in favor scale, precisely heavily niens how does plaintiff simрly applied. of the was not strong presumption in favor of domestic plaintiffs' weigh? forum choices 10. All but one of our cases that the district at Dissent In this the district supporting upon court relies its assertion court made clear that both fora found foreign weighs that of law Thus, "equally any pre- inconvenient.” if heavily only in favor of dismissal involve for- all, sumption applies apply at it must in this Brown, eign plaintiffs. See Ford v. situation. court would Whether (11th Cir.2003) Leon, citizen); (English 1302 determining abuse discretion in 51 (Ecuadorian citizens); Repub- F.3d 1305 251 percent, percent, percent Panama, (the 52 or 55 of the Republic lic 119 F.3d 935 of of "positive Motors, Panama); evidence constitute is sufficient to Magnin Teledyne v. Cont'l unusually (11th Cir.1996) (French evidence of circum- extreme 91 F.3d 1424 citi- zens); Co., warranting simply Sibaja stances” dismissal v. ‍‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‍Dow Chem. (11th Cir.1985) (Costa citizens); Seguridad, before us. La 707 F.2d at 1308 n. 1215 Rican

H05 Gilbert, 501, important Corp. factor v. 67 foreign law is an Oil U.S. tion of Gulf (1947); 839, public 91 L.Ed. 1055 Roster v. to be considered S.Ct. (Am.) interests, Co., accorded this factor cannot be Lumbermens Mut. Casualty 828, dispositive weight.11 67 S.Ct. 91 L.Ed. 1067 (1947); Piper Reyno, Co. Aircraft CONCLUSION 102 S.Ct. 70 L.Ed.2d U.S. (1981). Gilbert established the familiar the district court conclude We private/public interests framework. dismissing clearly abused its discretion 508-09, at at U.S. S.Ct. 843. Relevant and therefore REVERSE and this case private interests include access to sources consis- proceedings REMAND for further availability proof, of and cost of attend- opinion. tent with this witnesses, possibility ance of of view of BLACK, Judge, dissenting: Circuit аll premises, practical prob- “and other easy, expedi- lems that make trial of a case today’s I respectfully dissent from deci- First, inexpensive.” tious and Id. at overarching sion for two reasons. interests, S.Ct. at 843. Relevant on majority’s private analysis hand, does not accord sufficient deference to the the other include dif- administrative Second, decision.1 the ma- deciding htigation congest- district court’s ficulties with jority’s pronouncements are origin, ed centers rather than at their improvident dicta. imposition jury duty community on a htigation, unrelated to the in- the relative

I. FORUM NON CONVENIENS fora, possible terests of and the inter- IN GENERAL avoiding necessity est in a court laws, “untangling] problems in conflict of Generally speaking, Supreme three [applying] foreign foundation for an- and law to itself.” Id. provide Court cases 508-09, at alyzing non conveniens issues. 843. Gilbert’s com- Maritime, Inc., citizen, Sigalas was a v. Lido 776 F.2d 1512 States he resident abroad and (11th Cir.1985) (Greek nationals). pointed overwhelmingly all other factors favor of non conveniens dismissal. upon by case relied foreign court in which were not all Burt, (“There are, 11. See 218 F.2d at 357 no Satz, 244 F.3d at 1279. That case in- doubt, attempting difficulties in to determine products liability brought by volved a suit law; apply foreign necessity but the to do airplane estates victims of an crash in cases, often occurs.... In such the rules so Argentina. Argentin- All of the victims were foreign interpretation law and their are nationals, plaintiff repre- ean and of the five fact, simply questions of and the conclusion is estates, Argentin- sentatives of the four were any reviewable fact issue ... A as other Florida), (although ean one resided might presented if the different situation living one was a United States citizen in Ar- being federal court were asked enforce gentina. Id. at 1281 n. 1. The court noted equitable some or otherwise unusual relief weighed heavily peculiar to the law ... [however] [t]he depends upon favor of dismissal because most of evi- fact that success or failure dence, not, including wreckage, itself, justify the crash wit- law Mexico does dis- nesses, missal.’1) added) (citations important (emphasis documents were in Ar- omit- Also, ted). gentinа. Id. 1283-84. besides law, foreign noted the court public weighed in favor of majority, I treat 1. Like the for convenience Argentina Judge's were Ar- Magistrate Report because all victims and Recom- Satz, Thus, gentinean. Id. at 1284. al- mendation as if it were the district court’s opinion. though plaintiffs a United one of the Koster, strong pre- II. THE MAJORITY’S PRIVATE stated ‍‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‍the panion plaintiffs a in favor of home INTEREST ANALYSIS sumption 524, 330 U.S. at choice of forum. review, Despite the limited nature of our Finally, Piper clari- at 831-32. Aircraft majority finds the district court’s anal- is “somewhat” fied ysis litigants’ private interests con- foreigner. plaintiff is a weaker when of discretion. Re- stituted clear abuse n. 102 S.Ct. at 266 n. 454 U.S. at 255 disagree. I spectfully, Nevertheless, though the defer- even a domestic forum еnce due Piper explained: greater,

choice is A. Abuse Discretion Review Aircraft forum choice should not be A citizen’s strenuously Supreme The Court has ad- dispositive weight, however. Citi- given they may appellate monished courts that deserve somewhat zens residents reverse a district court’s non conve- forum foreign plaintiffs, deference than more only there has niens decision when been should not be automatical- but dismissal Piper “clear abuse of discretion.” Air- ly plaintiff when a has filed suit barred craft, 454 at at 266 U.S. S.Ct. if always, in his home forum. As added). end, (emphasis To that “where suggests balance of conveniences court has all rele- [district] considered trial in forum would un- the chosen factors, рublic private vant necessarily burdensome for the defen- balancing and where its of these factors is court, proper. dant or the dismissal is reasonable, its decision deserves substan- omitted). (emphasis Id. and citations added Specifically, ap- tial deference.” Id. when mind, With this foundation we have review, plying abuse of discretion the Su- previously clarified that a district court preme appellate Court has instructed merely things must do three before con trap “los[ing] courts not to fall into the cluding a case should be dismissed under rule, sight substitut[ing of this their] Seguri non conveniens. C.A. La judgment own for that of the District Line, Transytur dad v. Id., Court.” 102 S.Ct. at 266-67. (11th Cir.1983). First, it must identi (cit majority fallen into this trap. has fy adequate alternative forum. Id. today’s holding The crux of is that Gilbert, 506-07, ing S.Ct. 842). Second, apply presump- district court failed to according fo tion in favor of domestic appropriate rum un choice the deference Unfortunately, majority choice. Piper Aircraft, der Koster and it must (citation weigh justify able to this conclusion because interests. Id. omitted). Third, if the it does not limit its review for error to a equipoise, Typically, are at or near it must consider clear abuse of discretion. when “tip whether factors of the we ask whether a district court abused its discretion, balance in favor of a trial in a we ask whether (citation omitted). short, applied forum.”2 Id. In the relevant law to the rele- respectfully today’s example, though I vant For disagree with deci facts. even we might disagree sion because I believe the district court with the district court’s decision, adequately steps. generally undertook all three we find a district court Air, Inc., review, appellate previously 2. To aid we clari- Leon v. Millon (11th Cir.2001). fied that district courts should consider both factors "in all cases.”

H07 (Id. (em- only in rare only applied it conveniens cases.” its discretion when abused rule, phasis punctuation rele- added and internal wrong failed to balance the the omitted) Gilbert, factors, (citing 330 U.S. at only or considered the disad- vant 843).) Third, balancing at when Transy- of the fora. See S.Ct. the vantages of one contrast, factors, Line, private and the district F.2d at 1308. In tur novo, court сlarified that question de we do “unless the balance is when we review defendants, of reasoning strongly the the not accord the district court’s however, Today’s rarely choice of forum should be any opinion, deference. (Id. in- (emphasis district disturbed.” added and question whether the does omitted) Gilbert, rule,3 punctuation (citing ternal wrong the failed to applied court 843).) factors, I U.S. at 67 S.Ct. at do not only or con- 330 balance the relevant the court could have dem- of one of the see how district disadvantages sidered the instead, of strong court reversed onstrated fuller awareness the district fora— stringent- presumption plaintiffs favor of a initial apply it did not the rule because stating forum choice short of it a fourth meaningfully enough. holding This ly or proviso really time with the “I mean it this important distinction therefore blurs time.”4 for a clear abuse of discre- between review

tion and de novo review. Analysis The District C. Court’s Light Private Interests Recognition B. The District Court’s and Strong Presumption Application Strong Presump- tion I believe the district court’s decision is entitled to deference” because “substantial question There can be no pri- it all relevant “considered applied strong aware of and court was factors, balancing ... vate interest in favor of a initial presumption Piper factors reasonable.” [those] [was] The district court refer- forum choice. Aircraft, at at 266. strong three times. presumption enced the First, explicitly Considering private court refer- the district Gilbert, light of its presumption against explicitly set out “strong enced the acknowledgment strong previous initial forum choice.” disturbing plaintiffs’ added; plain- in favor of a domestic (emphasis citation and (Report omitted).) choice, Second, the district court ulti- punctuation tiffs internal mately concluded “the convenience explained that “courts (Report equipoise.” non factors are at or near apply should the doctrine of forum II.B, choice, do not suggests see Part I majority the district court 3. The infra standards,” necessary district court it was for the articulate the relevant think "failed to 1102), majority's particular regurgitate the (Opinion understand also to but I do not magic signifi- words. why majority attaches talismanic (1) district court did not cance to the fact the suggests 'positive majority un- the district court quote "our rule that evidence of 4. The pres- presumption in favor of usually be "never mentions the extreme circumstances’ must incorporates 'thoroughly or ent and that the court must be actually engages injustice into its calculus once it that material is mani- convinced fest,’ ” (2) (Opinion at weighing the interests.” explain 1102.) addition I do not understand how the applies inter- "when ests,” 1102). presumption was defeated” of the words "the (Opinion at Given the district any adding provi- recognition different from explicit repeated would court’s plaintiff's really time.” strong presumption of a so “I mean this in favor 4.) clearly the district court’s court abuses its discretion dis- at To contextualize necessary to set it out at reasoning, missing it is the case on non conveniens forum conclusion, however, length: grounds. This cannot be reached under review for abuse of dis- who examined the mer- Witnesses substituting majority’s cretion without it was unloaded in Flori- chandise when discretion for that of court. Additionally, in the district da are located Florida. Instead, only way to sensible under- allegedly products defective were stand the district court’s conclusion that shipped currently to Florida and are Florida, equi- interests were at or near negotia- located in somе of the Florida, poise strong presumption is that in place in and Defen- tions took partly favor of domestic was de- representatives dants’ traveled to Flori- feated, not that it ignored.5 at to negotiate. da on least one occasion However, in favor of trans- interpretation, unfortunately, The latter Spain fer to is the fact that witnesses opens a Box problems Pandora’s re- shipped who and manufactured the mer- garding the review of a district court’s chandise, Defendants, as well as are lo- non conveniens decision. Suppose forum Additionally, in Spain. light cated percent in Spain, evidence were alleged, part, the fact that Plaintiffs percent and 49 were Florida —would the defectively the merchandise was strong presumption in favor of domestic manufactured, may necessary it to plaintiffs tilt the balance retain- manufacturing examine Defendants’ fa- ing jurisdiction? percent? What about 52 cilities, Spain. which are located in Fi- percent? percent? In the non forum nally, documentary locat- evidence is scale, precisely heavily conveniens how ed in Spain, both Florida and and some does strong presumption in favor of of it is in Spanish. weigh? domestic forum choices (citation omitted).) (Report at 4 supposed Abuse of discretion review to Essentially, majority holds that appellate obviate the need of courts to when thеse substantive facts are arbitrary combined draw such lines the sand be- with strong presumption in favor of a cause commits such decisions to the choice, domestic a district district court’s sound discretion.6 Unfor- majority "speculate interprets declines to to have deter- simply precisely percent district court failed to mention the mined that of the evi- section, presumption in its Spain, but dence precisely percent was in presumption nevertheless considered the evidence was in the United States. presumption however, determined that the was defeat- interpretation, ignores This the dis- 1103.) contrast, (Opinion ed.” at In because trict court’s actual conclusion that the may only we review the district court's deci- (Order equipoise.” interests were "at or near discretion, added).) sion for a clear abuse of I would (emphasis at 4 scope Given the speculate despite repeatedly conclusion, decline to scope and the limited of our section, stating review, in its rule I believe the district court calculated “entirely district court nevertheless to plaintiff's favor of failed analysis consider the in its at outweigh choice did not its determination 1102.) (Opinion all.” Spain that somewhat more evidence was in such, than majority the United States. As majority 6. The reasons that because "the dis- commits the exact same error as countless trict court made argument by protesting clear that it found both fora advocates at oral inconvenient!,]’ 'equally any presumption problem if apply the Pandora’s Box does not all, applies (See apply 9.) Opinion it must in this situation.” this case. at 1103 n. Not Thus, n.9.) (Opinion majority at 1103 problem apply does the Pandora’s Box

H09 1302, Brown, 1307 F.3d Cir. simultaneously 319 opinion tunately, today’s Air, Inc., 2003); 251 F.3d Leon v. Millon of their discretion courts district deprives (11th Cir.2001); Satz, 244 1305, F.3d 1315 con- non thorny these to determine 1284; Panama v. BCCI Republic at provide to failing while issues veniens S.A., 119 F.3d (Luxembourg) Holdings application. rule for future clear cut them a (11th Cir.1997); 935, Magnin v. Tele 953 Summary D. Motors, 1424, 1430 dyne Cont’l Maritime, (11th Cir.1996); Sigalas v. Lido reasons, dis- respectfully I For these (11th ‍‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‍Cir.1985); 1512, Inc., F.2d 1520 776 majority’s conclusion the agree with Co., 757 F.2d Dow Chemiсal Sibaja a clear abuse v. court committed (11th Cir.1985); 1215, Transytur n. 4 litigants’ 1217 it weighed when of discretion Line, Instead, F.2d at 1307. I believe the interests. private acknowledged adequately distinguish these majority to The tries concluded, was as and still presumption, of them by noting none involved cases discretion, inter- within its at (Opinion exclusively plaintiffs. domestic equipoise. at or near ests were n.10.) public analyzing the 1104 & When interests, however, a distinction this is PUBLIC THE MAJORITY’S III. presumption The difference. without INTEREST ANALYSIS forum does favor of a domestic inter- public two court found The district weighing public inter- apply when not appli- dismissal: toward ests militated Line, at Transytur ests. See administrative Spanish law and cation of (“[T]he all must consider judge trial the dis- majority cоncludes burdens. interest, weigh- factors of private relevant I in error. reasoning court’s trict strong presumption ing in the balance majority’s public interest disagree with initial disturbing against plaintiffs’ for two reasons. analysis judge finds this bal- If the choice. trial con- First, majority expressly in equipoise to be ance of 1104), pronounce- cedes, at (Opinion then determine equipoise, he must or near are dicta. public interests regarding ments interest public whether or County, Bd. Volusia v. Sch. See Denno in a of trial tip balance Cir.2000) Fla., F.3d added)). (second In- emphasis forum.” that are (defining dicta as court statements only to the stead, applies case). to decide a necessary” “not interests. of the litigants’ Indeed, nо sense makes id. it See applica- Second, regarding the the dicta domes- in favor of weigh the public a relevant foreign law as tion of a second time forum choices tic inconsistent with consideration are interest interests. public considering the when cases eight Eleventh Circuit than no fewer the interests only concern Public factors The Su- cases. Supreme Court and two community, see local the local court and have Circuit and Eleventh preme Court 508-09, at Gilbert, 67 S.Ct. at applica- avoiding the held that repeatedly in favor of whereas public a relevant foreign law is tion of pri- addresses forum choice Aircraft, Piper consideration. Additional- Gilbert, plaintiff. 263; 330 vate interests at U.S. recogni- how 843; I not understand ly, do Ford 67 S.Ct. at U.S. next. force to the certainly apply with full but instant will litigation tion of a federal interest in this anything

would add already

scales when the district court rec-

ognized litigation. Florida’s interest reasons,

For weight these

interest in avoiding of for-

eign law turn on does not whether the

plaintiff foreign.7 is domestic or

IV. CONCLUSION reasons,

For respectfully these I dissent today’s decision,

from and would instead

affirm the district court. America,

UNITED STATES

Plaintiff-Appellee,

Randy BLANKENSHIP, Tammy W. J. Tammy

Blankenship, a.k.a. Blanken

ship Northrup, Tammy a.k.a. Northr

up, Tammy Owens, a.k.a. Tarand

Transport, Inc., Glover, Howard L. De

fendants-Appellants.

No. 01-17064.

United Appeals, States Court of

Eleventh Circuit.

Aug. 7. Alternatively, majority to the extent they and concluded were at or near merely pronounce intends to such, equipoise. application As foreign could dispositive weight not accord nothing law was more than one of two law, potential application foreign the ma- tipped interests that non conveniens jority knocks down a argument straw man scale Accordingly, toward dismissal. the ma adopted by never the district court. The dis- jority’s contrary citation to Burt v. Isthmus trict court never dispositive weight accorded Co., Development Cir. potential law 1955), inapposite. n.11.) (Opinion at 1105 already because it had balanced the

Case Details

Case Name: SME Racks, Inc. v. Sistemas Mecanicos Para Electronica, S.A.

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Date Published: Aug 24, 2004

Citation: 382 F.3d 1097

Docket Number: 03-12572

Court Abbreviation: 11th Cir.