ELEVENTH CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT FEDERAL FORUM NON CONVENIENS LAW TRUMPS FLORIDA FORUM NON CONVENIENS LAW IN DIVERSITY CASES WHERE THERE IS A FEDERAL COUNERVAILING INTEREST AT STAKE...
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT FEDERAL FORUM NON CONVENIENS LAW TRUMPS FLORIDA FORUM NON CONVENIENS LAW IN DIVERSITY CASES WHERE THERE IS A FEDERAL COUNERVAILING INTEREST AT STAKE - REVERSING DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL OF PASSENGER INJURY CLAIMS AGAINST ITALIAN CRUISE LINE WITH MIAMI MARKETING, SALES, AND ADVERTISING OFFICE
PATRICIA ESFELD, DONALD ESFELD, her husband, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus COSTA CROCIERE, S.P.A., a foreign corporation doing business in Miami-Dade County, Florida, Defendant-Appellee. ELEANOR COHON,JULIAN COHON, her husband, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus COSTA CROCIERE, S.P.A.,a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee. BELLE BESTOR, STANLEY BESTOR, her husband, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus COSTA CROCIERE, S.P.A., a foreign corporation doing business in Miami-Dade County, Florida, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 01-11072, No. 01-11073, No. 01-11074
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 7867
April 30, 2002, Decided
April 30, 2002, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. D.C. Docket No. 00-01662 CV-SH, D.C. Docket No. 00-01661 CV-SH, D.C. Docket No. 99-01914 CV-SH. Bestor v. Costa Crociere, S.P.A., 128 F. Supp. 2d 1356, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19714 (2000, S.D. Fla., Oct. 25).
OVERVIEW: These consolidated cases arise out of an accident that occurred during a guided van tour through the Da Nang area of Vietnam. Appellants are three elderly married couples that were injured in the accident, which occurred in January of 1994. All three couples are United States citizens, the Bestors residing in the State of California, and the Cohons and Esfelds residing in the State of Washington. At the time of the accident, the Appellants were on a Western Pacific cruise that had begun in Singapore and was set to terminate in Hong Kong. The cruise ship upon which they were traveling, the Ocean Pearl, was owned and operated by Costa. The three couples had contracted with Costa in 1993 to take the 13-night cruise of the Western Pacific aboard the Ocean Pearl. Although Costa is an Italian corporation, n2 the Appellants have argued throughout this litigation that all of Costa's marketing, advertising, and sales for the United States are done through an office in Miami with over 110 employees. These marketing and sales activities, the Appellants assert, generate between 30,000 and 52,000 United States customers per year. They also argue that Costa advertises in all major United States markets, runs an Internet site from Miami, and issues cruise brochures that list Miami as its address. According to the Appellants, the advertising was successful with respect to them, for they contracted for the Western Pacific cruise only after receiving uninvited solicitations in the United States from Costa, through American travel agents. The travel agents booked the cruise for them, and arrangements for the trip then were made through a company affiliated with Costa that was located in South Florida. It is as a result of these Miami-based sales activities by Costa, the Appellants maintain, that they contracted for the Western Pacific cruise that took them to Vietnam. After the accident in this case, Costa was acquired in part by Carnival Corporation, which is headquartered in Miami, Florida. Costa moved to dismiss pursuant to the doctrine of forum non-conveniens. The court determined that the primary question in these consolidated cases is whether there is a federal countervailing interest at stake that trumps the application of Florida law on forum non-conveniens in diversity cases. The court decided that federal law on forum non-conveniens should apply. This decision was based on the court's analysis showing that several federal interests, other than restricting access to the federal docket, are at stake in the forum non-conveniens context. Such interests include the federal goal of ensuring that United States citizens generally have access to the courts of this country for resolution of their disputes; the federal government's interest in foreign relations; and the federal concern over maintaining a national, unified set of venue rules among the several circuits. These federal interests trump outcome-determinative state law on forum non-conveniens.
OUTCOME: The court of appeals reversed the judgment of dismissal of the district court and remanded for further proceedings.
