Case ID: so2d_933/html/1155-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

INTCOMEX HOLDINGS, LLC, etc., Appellant, v. GRANT THORNTON INTERNATIONAL, etc., et al., Appellees.
    No. 3D05-1628.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    May 3, 2006.
    Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Aug. 4, 2006.
    Adorno & Yoss and John Arrastia, Jr. and Jack R. Reiter, Miami, for appellant.
    Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham and Jeffrey T. Kucera; Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw and Javier H. Rubinstein, Nicola Jackson, and Violeta I. Balan (Chicago); Burlington, Weil, Schwiep, Kaplan & Blonsky and Kevin C. Kaplan, Miami, for appellees.
    Before GERSTEN, FLETCHER, and CORTINAS, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

We find that the trial court’s decision to dismiss Appellant’s second amended complaint for forum non conveniens did not constitute a “clear abuse of discretion.” See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 257, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981). “[W]here the [trial] court has considered all relevant public and private interest factors, and where its balancing of these factors is reasonable, its decision deserves substantial deference.” Id.

Affirmed.