FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A U G U ST 28, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]
I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 11183 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C
. Do c k e tNo
. 0 6
- 6 0 7 0 0
- C V- F AM N O R A S U E T I N G L E , a n in d iv id u a l, J A M E S M I C H A E L T I N G L E , a n in d iv id u a l,
P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s W A L T E R L E E B A N K S , a n in d iv id u a l, L A G O M A R R E A L T Y , I N C ., aF lo r id ac o rp o r a tio n , C O C O S D E L P A R A I S O S A , af o r e ig n c o rp o r a tio n , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 28, 2007)2

B efo re B IR C H , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: P l a i nt i f f s N or aa nd M i c ha e l T i ngl e appe a l the di s tr i c tc our tor de rdi s m i s s i ng th e irc a s e o n f

o ru m n o n c o n v e n ie n s g r o u n d s . T h is c a s e a r is e s o u t o f a n in ju ry to N o r aT in g le w h ic h o c c u rr e d w h e n s h e f e ll f r o m ac lif

f w h ile o n v a c a tio n in C o s ta R i ca . T he T i ng l es al l ege thatthe vacat i on w as arrang ed by W al t erL ee B anks as an agentfor L ago M arR ea l ty and the i nj ury occ urre d o n l and o w ned b y C ocos D el P a r a is o S A . W e r e v ie w ad is m is s a l o n th e s e g r o u n d s f o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . S M E R a c k s , I n c . v . S is te ma s Me c a n i c o s Pa r a Ele c tr o n i c a , S
. A. , 382 F
. 3d 1097, 11 00 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). U nd erthi s s t andard, a di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on dese rves defe re nce w here i thas c on si dere d al l re l evantpu bl i c and pri vat e i nt er es tfa ct ors
a n d its b a la n c in g is r e a s o n ab le
. I d. H er e w e c an fi nd no abuse of di sc re t i on because the di stri ctcourtconsi dere d al l the re l evantfa ct ors i ncl ud i ng the pres um pt i on i n favor of the pl ai nt i ff’ s c ho i ce
o f f o ru m in m a k in g its d e te rm in a tio n . T h e m o v in g p a r ty h a s th e b u r d e n to

“ de m ons tr a t e tha t( 1) a n a de qua t e a l t e rna t i ve f orum i s a va i l abl e , ( 2) the publ i c a nd p r iv a te f a c to r s w e ig h in f

a v o ro f d is m is s a l, a n d ( 3 ) th e p la in tif f c a n r e in s ta te h is sui ti n the al t ernat i ve forum w i tho utun du e i ncon veni ence or prej ud i ce . ” L eon v. Millio n A ir, I

n c ., 25 1 F
. 3d 13 05 , 13 11 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). C ost a R i caprov i des an3

adequat e f

orum and the T i ng l es can rei nst at e thei r l aw sui tthere w i tho utprej ud i ce , gi ve n tha tthe de f

e nda nt s ha ve a gr e e d t o s ubm i tt o the c our t ’ s j ur i s di c t i on a nd the d e f e n d a n ts a r e a m e n ab le to p r o c e s s th e r e . Se e L e on , 2 5 1 F .3 d a t 1 3 1 1
. F ur the rm or e , the di s tr i c tc our te nga ge d i n ar e a s onabl e a na l y s i s of the publ i c a nd p riv ate in tere sts in v o lv ed , an d ap p li ed th e p re su m p ti o n in fa v o r o f th e p lain ti ff’s
c h o ic e o f f o ru m . T h e r e f

o r e , w e a f

f irm th e d is tr ic t c o u r t's o r d e rd is m is s in g th is act i o n fo r fo ru m n o n co n v en i en s. AF F I RME D.