Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-14810/USCOURTS-ca11-15-14810-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ann Cleveland
Appellant
Cory Cleveland
Appellant
Island Hotel Company Limited
Appellee
Kerzner International Bahamas Limited
Appellee
Kerzner International Limited
Appellee
Kerzner International Resorts, Inc.
Appellee
Paradise Island Limited
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-14810

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-23897-DPG

CORY CLEVELAND, 

ANN CLEVELAND, 

his wife, 

 Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 versus

KERZNER INTERNATIONAL RESORTS, INC., 

a Florida corporation, 

KERZNER INTERNATIONAL BAHAMAS LIMITED, 

a Bahamian company, 

KERZNER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, 

a Bahamian company, 

ISLAND HOTEL COMPANY LIMITED, 

a Bahamian company, 

PARADISE ISLAND LIMITED, 

a Bahamian company, et al.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

USCA11 Case: 15-14810 Date Filed: 08/19/2016 Page: 1 of 8
2

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(August 19, 2016)

Before MARCUS, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

In this diversity case, husband and wife Cory and Ann Cleveland (“Mr. and 

Mrs. Cleveland,” or “the Clevelands”) appeal the district court’s dismissal of their 

tort action against Kerzner International Resorts, Inc., Kerzner International 

Bahamas Limited, Kerzner International Limited, Island Hotel Company Limited, 

Paradise Island Limited, and Brookfield Asset Management, Inc. (collectively, “the 

defendants”). The suit was based on injuries Mr. Cleveland suffered at a water 

park at the Atlantis resort in the Bahamas. The defendants, all but one of whom 

are citizens of the Bahamas,1 are the owners and operators of Atlantis. The 

Clevelands, who are citizens of Illinois, filed the case in the Southern District of 

Florida. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on forum non 

conveniens grounds, based on a clause in an agreement the Clevelands signed upon 

their check-in at Atlantis, which selected the Bahamas as the forum for any 

disputes arising during their stay. On appeal, the Clevelands argue that, in granting 

 1 Kerzner International Resorts, Inc., is a citizen of Florida.

USCA11 Case: 15-14810 Date Filed: 08/19/2016 Page: 2 of 8
3

the motion to dismiss, the district court erred in finding that: (1) they had notice of 

the forum-selection clause and therefore it was not the result of overreaching; and 

(2) they failed to show that, due to their financial situation, enforcing the 

forum-selection clause would effectively deprive them of their day in court. After 

thorough review, we affirm.

The enforceability of a forum-selection clause is a question of law subject to 

de novo review. Bailey v. ERG Enters., LP, 705 F.3d 1311, 1316 (11th Cir. 2013), 

abrogated on other grounds as recognized in Pappas v. Kerzner Int’l Bah. Ltd., 

585 F. App’x 962, 964 (11th Cir. 2014) (unpublished). Once the enforceability of 

the forum-selection clause has been established, we review the district court’s 

dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds only for “a clear abuse of discretion.” 

See Membreno v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 425 F.3d 932, 935-36 (11th Cir. 2005); 

see also Atl. Marine Constr. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Tex., 

134 S. Ct. 568, 580-82 & n.5 (2013). Where there is a valid forum-selection 

clause, a district court may deny a motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens

grounds only where public-interest factors counsel against dismissal. See Atl. 

Marine, 134 S. Ct. at 582.

In seeking enforcement of a forum-selection clause at the motion to dismiss 

stage, the defendant may submit affidavits in support of enforceability. See Est. of 

Myhra v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1233, 1238-39 (11th Cir. 2012). 

USCA11 Case: 15-14810 Date Filed: 08/19/2016 Page: 3 of 8
4

If the district court decided the enforceability question without holding an 

evidentiary hearing, on appeal, we take the allegations in the complaint as true, but 

“only to the extent they are uncontroverted by [the] defendant’s affidavits.” 

Id. at 1239 (quotation and alteration omitted). Thus, we “consciously look beyond 

the mere allegations of [the] complaint, and, although we continue to favor the 

plaintiff’s facts in the context of any actual evidentiary dispute, we do not view the 

allegations of the complaint as the exclusive basis for [our] decision.” Id.

“Forum-selection clauses are presumptively valid and enforceable unless the 

plaintiff makes a ‘strong showing’ that enforcement would be unfair or 

unreasonable under the circumstances.” Krenkel v. Kerzner Int’l Hotels Ltd., 

579 F.3d 1279, 1281 (11th Cir. 2009). A forum-selection clause will be deemed 

invalid if: “(1) its formation was induced by fraud or overreaching; (2) the plaintiff 

would be deprived of its day in court because of inconvenience or unfairness; 

(3) the chosen law would deprive the plaintiff of a remedy; or (4) enforcement of 

the clause would contravene public policy.” Id. The district court found none of 

these factors present in this case. On appeal, the Clevelands challenge the court’s 

findings with regard to the first and second factors, only.

First, the Clevelands argue that the district court erred in finding that the 

forum-selection clause was not the result of overreaching. To determine whether 

there was fraud or overreaching, we examine whether the clause was “reasonably 

USCA11 Case: 15-14810 Date Filed: 08/19/2016 Page: 4 of 8
5

communicated to the consumer.” Id. We do so using a two-part test that takes into 

account (1) “the clause’s physical characteristics,” and (2) “whether the plaintiffs 

had the ability to become meaningfully informed of the clause and to reject its 

terms.” Id.

The Clevelands acknowledge that, when they checked in at Atlantis, they 

each signed a one-page “Acknowledgement, Agreement and Release” form, which 

was headlined “READ BEFORE SIGNING” at the top. The form contained eight 

paragraphs, most of which were one-sentence long. The fourth paragraph 

provided:

I agree that any claims I may have against the Resort 

Parties resulting from any events occurring in 

The Bahamas shall be governed by and constructed in 

accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of 

The Bahamas, and further, I irrevocably agree to the 

Supreme Court of The Bahamas as the exclusive venue 

for any such proceedings whatsoever.

In Krenkel, which involved the exact same forum-selection clause at issue 

here, we held that the clause’s physical characteristics meaningfully communicated 

its contents. 579 F.3d at 1281-82. We observed that the forum-selection clause

was not hidden or ambiguous, it was legibly set apart as one of only eight 

paragraphs, the language of the clause was plain, and the agreement warned in 

bold, capitalized letters to “READ BEFORE SIGNING.” Id. 

USCA11 Case: 15-14810 Date Filed: 08/19/2016 Page: 5 of 8
6

The Clevelands assert no argument to the contrary. Instead, they contend 

that they did not have a meaningful opportunity to reject the forum-selection 

clause. The district court found that the Clevelands could have rejected the clause 

at check-in. It based that finding, in part, on the defendants’ affidavit from an 

Atlantis representative, attesting that Atlantis has a long-standing policy of 

allowing guests to “strike out the forum-selection clause . . . without penalty.” The 

Clevelands maintain that the district court erred in relying on this policy, because 

there was nothing in the record to indicate it had ever been communicated to them. 

However, the Clevelands do not argue here -- and they made no allegation in the 

district court -- that they were forced to adhere to the forum-selection clause at 

check-in. For instance, they made no allegation that they attempted to strike out 

the clause and were told they could not check in unless they adhered to it, nor that 

they even asked about whether they could do so. Accordingly, we agree with the 

district court that the Clevelands had an opportunity to reject the forum-selection 

clause at check-in, and that the clause was thus not the result of overreaching.2

Second, the Clevelands argue that enforcing the forum-selection clause 

would deprive them of their day in court because they lack the financial resources 

to hire an attorney in the Bahamas, where contingency fee agreements are not 

 2 The Clevelands also dispute the district court’s finding that they had prior constructive 

notice of the forum-selection clause because of an agreement Atlantis had with the travel agency 

that booked their vacation. Because we agree with the district court’s finding that the Clevelands 

had actual notice of the forum-selection clause, we need not reach the district court’s alternative 

finding on the issue of constructive notice.

USCA11 Case: 15-14810 Date Filed: 08/19/2016 Page: 6 of 8
7

permitted. In an affidavit filed in the district court, Cory Cleveland stated that he 

had annual earnings of $97,000 and monthly expenses of $8,000. He asserted that 

he did not have “the financial resources to post a non-citizen cost bond in the 

Bahamas, which is required for non-residents,” nor “the financial resources to pay 

an attorney for the costs and fees up front as they become due.” Mrs. Cleveland 

did not file an affidavit, and there is nothing in the record regarding her finances.

In support of their motion to dismiss, the defendants filed an affidavit by a 

Bahamian lawyer, attesting that there is “affordable” counsel in the Bahamas, with 

rates starting at $250 per hour. The Bahamian attorney attested that, to the extent 

the Clevelands were unwilling or unable to travel to the Bahamas, Bahamian courts 

could make accommodations, such as taking witness testimony at the Bahamian 

consulate in Miami, or accepting deposition testimony taken in the United States. 

Taking into account both parties’ affidavits, the district court determined that 

the Clevelands’ “generic averments of financial hardship and inconvenience” were 

insufficient to show that litigating in the Bahamas would be “so gravely difficult 

and inconvenient” that they would effectively be deprived of their day in court. 

We agree. Mr. Cleveland’s affidavit -- which noted his annual earnings of $97,000 

and was silent as to his assets or the existence of any other sources of income -- did

not establish that he and Mrs. Cleveland (whose finances are unknown) would be 

unable to afford counsel in the Bahamas. Moreover, we’ve explained before that 

USCA11 Case: 15-14810 Date Filed: 08/19/2016 Page: 7 of 8
8

the lack of a contingency fee system is a “particularly weak” basis for denying a 

motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens. See Magnin v. Teledyne 

Cont’l Motors, 91 F.3d 1424, 1430 (11th Cir. 1996). If the opposite were true, “a 

case could almost never be dismissed because contingency fees are not allowed in 

most forums.” Id. (quotation omitted). Accordingly, we discern no error in the 

district court’s finding that requiring the Clevelands to litigate their claims in the 

Bahamas would not effectively deprive them of their day in court, see Krenkel, 

579 F.3d at 1281, nor in its ultimate determination that the forum-selection clause 

was valid and enforceable.

Finally, the Clevelands have offered no argument as to how dismissal of the 

case on forum non conveniens grounds would be contrary to the public interest. 

They thus have not shown that the district court abused its discretion by granting 

the defendants’ motion to dismiss on that basis. See Atl. Marine, 134 S. Ct. at 582.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 15-14810 Date Filed: 08/19/2016 Page: 8 of 8