[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-15210

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:12-cv-00148-GKS-KRS

DAVID GOLDSTEIN,

MARION GOLDSTEIN, spouse, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

HARD ROCK CAFE INTERNATIONAL (USA), INC.,

PALACE HOLDING, S.A. DE C.V.,

PALACE RESERVATIONS, S.A. DE C.V.,

d.b.a. Palace Resorts,

PALACE RESORTS TRAVEL, INC.,

INVERSIONES ZAHENA, S.A.,

HOLDING INTERNACIONAL, S.A. DE C.V., 

d.b.a. Hard Rock Hotel & Casino Punta Cana,

 Defendants - Appellees. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(May 20, 2013)

Case: 12-15210 Date Filed: 05/20/2013 Page: 1 of 6 
2

Before HULL, JORDAN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

David and Marion Goldstein filed suit in the Middle District of Florida 

against Hard Rock Cafe International (USA), Inc.; Palace Holding, S.A. de C.V.;

Palace Reservations, S.A. de C.V.; Palace Resorts Travel, Inc.; Inversiones 

Zahena, S.A.; and Holding Internacional, S.A. de C.V., (collectively, the 

defendants) based on injuries they sustained as a result of David Goldstein’s slipand-fall in the Dominican Republic.1

 The district court granted the defendants’ 

motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens so that the case could be tried in 

the Dominican Republic. After thorough review, we affirm.

David Goldstein slipped and fell on a walkway at the Hard Rock Hotel & 

Casino Punta Cana (the Resort) in the Dominican Republic while a guest there. 

The Goldsteins sued the defendants — who owned, operated, and managed the 

Resort — for negligence, seeking damages for David Goldstein’s resulting injuries, 

which necessitated knee-replacement surgery, and for Marion Goldstein’s 

subsequent loss of consortium. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on 

forum non conveniens, arguing that the suit should be tried in the Dominican 

Republic. The district court granted the motion — on the condition that the 

 1 We grant the Goldsteins’ unopposed motion to amend the complaint to reflect the places of 

incorporation and principal places of business of each of the defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653. 

There is complete diversity of citizenship and, thus, the district court had jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332.

Case: 12-15210 Date Filed: 05/20/2013 Page: 2 of 6 
3

defendants submit to the jurisdiction of a Dominican court, waive any statute of 

limitations defense, and make witnesses and evidence available to the Goldsteins

— finding that the Dominican Republic was an available and adequate alternative 

forum and the balance of private and public interest factors weighed heavily in 

favor of dismissal. This is the Goldsteins’ appeal.

We review the district court’s decision to dismiss a suit based on forum non 

conveniens for an abuse of discretion. SME Racks, Inc. v. Sistemas Mecanicos 

Para Electronica, S.A., 382 F.3d 1097, 1100 (11th Cir. 2004). “[W]here the court 

has considered all relevant public and private interest factors, and where its

balancing of these factors is reasonable, its decision deserves substantial 

deference.” Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 257 (1981). To obtain 

dismissal based on the inconvenience of the forum, defendants must “demonstrate 

that (1) an adequate alternative forum is available, (2) the public and private 

factors weigh in favor of dismissal, and (3) the plaintiff[s] can reinstate [their] suit 

in the alternative forum without undue inconvenience or prejudice.” Leon v. 

Millon Air, Inc., 251 F.3d 1305, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001). The Goldsteins do not 

dispute that the Dominican Republic is an adequate alternative forum where they 

may reinstate their suit, but they argue the district court abused its discretion in 

dismissing their suit because it erroneously weighed the public and private factors. 

Case: 12-15210 Date Filed: 05/20/2013 Page: 3 of 6 
4

“[W]ith regard to the weighing of the private interests, the plaintiffs’ choice 

of forum should rarely be disturbed unless the balance is strongly in favor of the 

defendant.” SME Racks, Inc., 382 F.3d at 1101 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Relevant private factors include the “relative ease of access to sources of proof; 

availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of 

obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; . . . and all other practical problems that 

make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” Piper Aircraft Co., 454 

U.S. at 241 n.6 (internal quotation marks omitted).

 The record supports the district court’s conclusion that the private factors 

strongly support dismissal. Two doctors who treated David Goldstein shortly after 

he fell cannot be compelled to testify in a U.S. court because they reside in the 

Dominican Republic and are not employed by the defendants. See United States v. 

Drogoul, 1 F.3d 1546, 1553 (11th Cir. 1993) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1783). Six other

potential witnesses reside in the Dominican Republic, although the Goldsteins 

identified four potential witnesses who reside in the U.S. The district court 

reasonably found that access to the witnesses in the Dominican Republic was more 

important. The Goldsteins’ witnesses could only testify to the fall they witnessed, 

which would likely be duplicative of David Goldstein’s testimony. The witnesses

in the Dominican Republic, on the other hand, are likely the only potential

witnesses who could testify to the maintenance history of the walkway area where 

Case: 12-15210 Date Filed: 05/20/2013 Page: 4 of 6 
5

Goldstein fell. The district court also found that documentary evidence is located 

in the Dominican Republic, including the two doctors’ medical records which

cannot be subpoenaed from third-parties in the Dominican Republic.

The Goldsteins argue that the district court erroneously balanced the private 

factors because it failed to consider the presumption in favor of a plaintiff’s forum 

choice. The district court, however, explicitly stated that it “analyze[d] the private 

interest factors in light of the presumption in favor of the Plaintiffs’ choice of 

forum” and concluded that “the balance of the private interest factors . . . 

outweighs the presumption for the Plaintiffs’ choice of forum.” The Goldsteins 

also contend the district court failed to consider the financial hardship they would 

suffer if they were required to bring suit in the Dominican Republic. But they do 

not refute the district court’s conclusion that, because the Goldsteins’ witnesses 

reside in New Jersey and would have to travel either to Florida or the Dominican 

Republic for this suit, there would be little difference between travel costs and 

inconveniences regardless of which forum was chosen.

The record also supports the district court’s conclusion that the public 

factors weigh in favor of dismissal. Relevant public factors include “the local 

interest in having localized controversies decided at home; the interest in having 

the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the law that must govern 

the action; the avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws, or in the 

Case: 12-15210 Date Filed: 05/20/2013 Page: 5 of 6 
6

application of foreign law; and the unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated 

forum with jury duty.” Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 241 n.6 (internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

Although they do not concede the point, the Goldsteins do not seriously 

contest the district court’s well-reasoned conclusion that Dominican law would 

probably apply. A Florida district court likely is not “at home” with Dominican 

law, nor would a jury be familiar with applying this foreign law. And because the 

slip-and-fall happened in the Dominican Republic, the district court correctly 

considered the Dominican Republic’s significant interest in deciding a controversy 

arising from occurrences on its own soil.

2

 

The district court considered and reasonably balanced the relevant public 

and private interest factors. Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion in 

dismissing this case based on forum non conveniens.

AFFIRMED.

 2 The Goldsteins argue that the district court erred by not considering the U.S. interest in 

providing a forum for U.S. citizen plaintiffs in its public-factor analysis. In its private-factor 

analysis, the district court found that “the balance of the private interest factors . . . outweighs the 

presumption for the Plaintiffs’ choice of forum.” Although we have indicated that the U.S. 

interest in providing a forum for its citizens is a factor that should be considered when weighing

the public factors, we have never held that a district court abuses its discretion by failing to 

discuss that factor in the public-factor analysis. See SME Racks, Inc., 382 F.3d at 1104. And the 

Goldsteins have not demonstrated how express consideration of that factor again after careful 

consideration in the private-factor analysis would change the result of the public-factor analysis. 

Case: 12-15210 Date Filed: 05/20/2013 Page: 6 of 6