[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT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 TRAVE L, 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 Co urt for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ (May 20, 2013) Case: 12-15210 Date Filed: 05/20/2013 Page: 1 of 62 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 Inter national (USA), Inc.; Palac e Holding, S.A. de C.V .; Palace Reservations, S.A . de C.V.; Palace Resort s Travel, Inc.; Inversi ones Zahena, S.A.; and Holding Internacional, S.A. de C.V. , (collectively , the defendants ) based on injuries they sustained a s a result of David Goldstein’s slip

and

- 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 Republi c . After thorough review, we affirm. David Goldstein slipped an d fell on a walkway at the Hard Rock Hotel & Casino Punta Cana (the Re sort) in the Dominican Republic while a guest there

. The Goldst eins sued the defe ndants

— who owned, operated, and managed the
Resort

— for negligence, seeking damages for David Goldste in’s resulting in juries , 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 Rep ublic . The district cour t 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

. T here is complete diversity of citizenship and, thus, the district court had j urisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332

. Case: 12-15210 Date Filed: 05/20/2013 Page: 2 of 63 defendants submit to the jurisdiction of a Dominican court, waive any statute of limitations defense, and make witnesses and evid ence available to the Goldsteins

— finding that th e Dominican Republic was an available and adequate alternative forum and t he 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 b ased 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 dismissi ng their suit because it erroneousl y weighed the public and private factors.

Case: 12-15210 Date Filed: 05/20/2013 Page: 3 of 64 “[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.” S ME 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 at tendance of willing, witnesses; . . . and all other practical problems that make tr ial 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 . T wo doctors who treated David Gol dstein 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 Un ited States v. Drogoul , 1 F.3d 1546, 1553 (11th Cir. 1993) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1783). S ix other potential witnesses reside in the Dominican Republ ic , although the Goldsteins identified four potential witnesses who reside in the U.S. T he district court reasonably found that access to the witnesses in the Dominican Republic was more important . T he Goldsteins’ witnesses could only testify to the fall they wit nessed, which would likely be duplicativ e of David Goldstein’ s te stimony . T he witness es in the Do minican Republic, on the other hand, are likely the only potential witnesses who could testify to the mai ntenance history of the walkway area where

Case: 12-15210 Date Filed: 05/20/2013 Page: 4 of 65 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 t hird

- parti es in the Dominican Republic

. The Goldsteins argue that the district court erroneously balanced the private factors because it failed to consider the presumpti on in favor of a plaintiff’s forum choice. The district court, however, explici tly stated that it “ analyze [d] the private interest factors in light of the presumption in favor of the Plaintiff s’ choice of forum ” and concluded that “the balance of the priv ate 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. B ut they do
not refute the district court ’s conclusion that, b ecause 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 trav el 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 contr oversies decided at ho me ; 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 66 application of foreign law ; and the unf airness 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 c orrectly considered the Dominican Republic’s significant interest in deciding a controversy arising from occurrences on its own soil

. 2
The district court considered and reasonabl y balanced the relevant public and private interest factors

. Thus, t he court did not abuse its discreti on in dismissing this case based on forum non conveniens

. AFFIRMED.

2 The Goldsteins argue that the district court erre d 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, t he district court found that “the balance of the private interest fa ctors . . . outweighs the presumption for the Plaintiffs’ choice of forum.” Although we have indicat ed that the U.S. interest in providing a forum for its citiz ens is a factor that should be considered when weighing the public factors, we have never held tha t a district court abuses its dis cretion by failing to di scuss that factor in the public

- factor analysis. See SME Racks, Inc. , 382 F.3d at 1104. And the Gol dsteins have not demonstrated how express consideration of that factor again after caref ul 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