DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JOHN GORDON,

Appellant,

v.

MARLANA A. BETHEL, a/k/a MARLANA KRAUSE BETHEL,

and JOHNNY A. BETHEL,

Appellees.

No. 4D21-3588

[April 19, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; David A. Haimes, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE-20-

011629.

Jason Ari Smith of the Law Offices of Jason Ari Smith, P.A., Oakland 

Park, for appellant.

Brian Recor of Recor Rieber, P.A., Miami, for appellees.

WARNER, J.

Appellant, John Gordon, timely appeals a final order granting appellees 

Marlana Bethel’s and Johnny Bethel’s motion to dismiss for forum non 

conveniens, and dismissing Gordon’s amended complaint with prejudice. 

The trial court found that The Bahamas was a more convenient forum for 

Gordon’s defamation claim against the Bethels. Because, under a Kinney1

analysis, the public and private interest factors do not favor The Bahamas

as the forum, and because the court failed to accord the very strong 

presumption in favor of Florida jurisdiction in a suit by a Florida resident, 

the court abused its discretion in dismissing this case. We reverse.

Gordon filed the underlying lawsuit against the Bethels for defamation. 

Gordon, an experienced marine surveyor, adjuster, investigator, and 

salvage master, is a resident of Broward County. He operates his business 

endeavors out of Broward and has clients/customers in Florida.

1 Kinney Sys., Inc. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1996).
2

In September 2019, when Hurricane Dorian hit Scotland Cay in The 

Bahamas, it caused extensive damage. Among the wreckage caused by 

the hurricane was the vessel, the “Grace Sea.” The vessel had been 

damaged, but according to Gordon, while the vessel had taken on water at 

a dock in Scotland Cay, the engine was not submerged, and it was not 

leaking fuel or oil, so it was not a peril. According to the National Vessel 

Documentation Center, the United States Department of Homeland 

Security and the United States Coast Guard certified the vessel as owned 

at the time by Grace Marine LLC, a company with a Delaware address.

The vessel bore a United States flag and its registered hailing port was 

Okeechobee, Florida.

Days after the hurricane, the owner of Grace Marine, Gilbert Culbreth, 

Jr., filed a claim with his insurer, GEICO Marine Insurance. GEICO then 

had its subsidiary BoatUS attempt to recover the vessel. Around 

September 12, 2019, the vessel was tagged with a decal stating: “POSTEDNO TRESPASSING! Do Not Board or Move Boat Without Permission From 

BoatUS or Vessel Owner.” The decal also listed contact numbers for 

BoatUS. In the following days, a BoatUS contractor attempted to take 

possession of the vessel, but the vessel had been tied to the dock and 

padlocked so that it could not be moved.

On September 27, 2019, Grace Marine sold the vessel to GEICO, and

the bill of sale stated the vessel was sold free and clear of any 

encumbrances of any kind and nature. GEICO contacted Gordon on 

October 9 to try to recover the vessel. Gordon and a BoatUS 

representative, David Wiggins, located the vessel in Scotland Cay Marina 

and observed it tied to the dock and padlocked. While at the marina, 

Gordon and Wiggins encountered appellee Mr. Bethel, who told them that 

he had salvaged the vessel. Because Mr. Bethel had not been authorized 

to salvage the vessel, Gordon and Wiggins told Mr. Bethel not to move or 

tamper with the vessel. However, the vessel was removed from the marina

without GEICO’s permission.

After BoatUS’s efforts to locate the vessel failed, Gordon was asked to 

locate the vessel again. On February 9, 2020, Gordon located the vessel 

at the Bethels’ home on a trailer bearing Culbreth’s name. Gordon 

contacted local police to let them know that he had been unable to get in 

contact with the Bethels and that the Bethels had not been authorized to 

salvage the vessel. Later that same day, Mr. Bethel contacted Gordon and 

gave him a salvage invoice for $24,500 which included salvaging the 

“sunken” vessel and renting a trailer to store the vessel.
3

On April 29, 2020, after BoatUS and GEICO were unable to retake 

possession of the vessel, GEICO executed a bill of sale transferring 

ownership to Gordon.

The Bethels acknowledge that they salvaged the vessel but maintain 

that they found the vessel submerged and unable to float or drive. They

claim that Gordon came to their private marina and attempted to take the 

boat back several times, including one time accompanied by Bahamian 

police. Gordon was not able to obtain the boat because he did not have 

the appropriate paperwork showing he was the owner.

In May of 2020, Ms. Bethel admitted that she published a series of 

Facebook posts which are the subject of Gordon’s defamation lawsuit.

According to the verified amended complaint, on May 30, 2020, Ms. Bethel 

posted a photograph of Gordon on her Facebook account with the following 

statement:

Hey Abaco! This is John Gordon from Boat US in our private 

marina at 10:30 this morning while we are supposed to be on 

lockdown. This guy is the biggest crook I have 

encountered since Dorian came through. Does anyone 

know if he has a legal right to still be in Abaco trying to take 

boats? We have had numerous conversations with other 

Abaconians that have had questionable run ins with him. He 

is being super sketchy right now and I’d like to find out if he 

is here legally.

The post was accessed, shared, and liked by Florida residents named 

in the complaint. Other Facebook posts by Ms. Bethel stated that BoatUS 

and Gordon were in a “scam business together”; Gordon was “shady as 

hell”; he “just made off” with the boat and “stole it out of the marina”; and 

he was “raping boats in the Bahamas.” In another Facebook post and 

video, Ms. Bethel insinuated that Gordon was not a legitimate salvager. 

Ms. Bethel also allegedly disparaged Gordon to companies doing business 

in Florida, GEICO and/or BoatUS, and caused others to do the same.

Gordon filed a three-count complaint in Broward County: count one for 

defamation against Ms. Bethel; count two for conspiracy to defame against 

both Mr. and Ms. Bethel; and count three against another defendant who 

is not party to this appeal. After the Bethels were served in The Bahamas, 

they filed a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens. With the 

motion, the Bethels also each filed an affidavit. Gordon then filed an 

amended complaint with the same counts as the original complaint, but 
4

the amended complaint was verified. Gordon also filed an affidavit and a 

response in opposition to the Bethels’ motion.

After reviewing the affidavits and holding a hearing on the motion, the 

trial court granted the Bethels’ motion to dismiss, concluding that the 

public and private interest factors favored The Bahamas. The court 

focused on what it perceived was the Bethels’ defense of truth to Gordon’s 

defamation claim. The court determined that the majority of witnesses 

were in The Bahamas, and discounted the witnesses in Florida. The court 

also found that public interests tipped in favor of The Bahamas as more 

people were “affect[ed] over there.” Further, the court found that the 

expense of litigation favored The Bahamas, and the court presumed any 

judgment would have to be enforced in The Bahamas.

After the oral ruling, the trial court allowed Gordon to add some points 

to the record, including that the amended complaint was verified and that

Ms. Bethel made disparaging phone calls to GEICO and to BoatUS in the 

United States from her Florida phone number on the salvage invoice. 

Gordon also pointed out that he owned the vessel when these Facebook 

posts were being made and thus had a right to claim the vessel. 

Nevertheless, the court issued a written order, granting the Bethels’

motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061(a) “for the 

reasons stated on the record.” Gordon appeals the dismissal.

Analysis

Standard of Review

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061(a) sets forth the basis upon which 

a case may be dismissed for forum non conveniens, and provides that 

“[t]he decision to grant or deny the motion for dismissal rests in the sound 

discretion of the trial court, subject to review for abuse of discretion.” In 

a forum non conveniens case, “the exercise of judicial discretion must be 

within the limits of applicable principles of law and equity.” Ciba-Geigy 

Ltd. v. Fish Peddler, 691 So. 2d 1111, 1115 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). “Thus, 

discretion may be arbitrarily exercised where principles of law are not 

followed.” Id. Further, where “the trial court’s decision is not based on 

live testimony, ‘[t]he presumption of correctness given to a trial court’s 

rulings . . . is lessened, because the appellate court has everything the trial 

court had before it.’” Deluca v. Hislop, 868 So. 2d 1254, 1257 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 2004) (alteration in original) (quoting Woods v. Nova Cos. Belize Ltd., 

739 So. 2d 617, 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)).
5

Merits

“The common law doctrine of forum non conveniens, which translates 

to mean ‘inconvenient forum,’ is an equitable, judicially crafted rule 

designed to allow a court to dismiss, in certain limited circumstances, a 

lawsuit with little connection to Florida that would be better suited and 

fairly litigated elsewhere.” Cortez v. Palace Resorts, Inc., 123 So. 3d 1085, 

1090 (Fla. 2013).

Our supreme court in Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 

674 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1996), adopted the federal doctrine of forum non 

conveniens. Rule 1.061(a) codifies the federal forum non conveniens 

standard, allowing for an action to be dismissed on the ground that a 

satisfactory remedy may be more conveniently sought in a jurisdiction 

other than Florida when:

(1) the trial court finds that an adequate alternate forum 

exists which possesses jurisdiction over the whole case, 

including all of the parties;

(2) the trial court finds that all relevant factors of private 

interest favor the alternate forum, weighing in the balance a 

strong presumption against disturbing plaintiffs’ initial forum 

choice;

(3) if the balance of private interests is at or near equipoise, 

the court further finds that factors of public interest tip the 

balance in favor of trial in the alternate forum; and

(4) the trial judge ensures that plaintiffs can reinstate their 

suit in the alternate forum without undue inconvenience or 

prejudice.

Fla. R. Civ. Pro 1.061(a); Kinney, 674 So. 2d at 94.

The defendant invoking forum non conveniens “bears a heavy burden 

in opposing the plaintiff’s chosen forum.” Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia 

Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 423 (2007); Wilson v. Island Seas Invs., 

Ltd., 590 F.3d 1264, 1269 (11th Cir. 2009) (same). Further, “[a] defendant 

seeking dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds bears the burden of 

persuasion as to each Kinney factor.” Bridgestone/Firestone N. Am. Tire, 

LLC v. Garcia, 991 So. 2d 912, 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
6

In reviewing a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, the trial 

court must treat the complaint’s factual allegations as true and consider 

those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Cortez, 123 

So. 3d at 1088 n.2. All reasonable inferences should also be drawn in the 

plaintiff’s favor. See Otto Candies, LLC v. Citigroup, Inc., 963 F. 3d 1331, 

1336 (11th Cir. 2020) (“[W]e accept as true the factual allegations in the 

complaint to the extent they are uncontroverted by affidavits or other 

evidence, or have not been challenged in the context of an evidentiary 

hearing. We also draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiffs.”); 

see also Lambert v. Melia Hotels Int’l S.A., 526 F. Supp 3d 1207 (S.D. Fla. 

2021) (“When affidavits conflict, the court is inclined to give greater weight 

to the plaintiff’s version of the . . . facts and to construe such facts in the 

light most favorable to the plaintiff.”) (citation omitted).

Here, Gordon filed a verified complaint as well as an affidavit, and the 

Bethels each filed an affidavit. We review each of the Kinney factors as 

applied to those filings.

(1) Another Available and Adequate Forum:

Consideration of the first Kinney factor requires determining both the 

availability and adequacy of the alternate forum, which in this case is The 

Bahamas. See Bridgestone, 991 So. 2d at 916 (citing Ciba-Geigy Ltd., 691 

So. 2d at 1115). “The availability requirement is met when the defendant 

seeking dismissal establishes that the foreign court can assert jurisdiction 

over the litigation sought to be transferred.” Bridgestone, 991 So. 2d at 

916. “Ordinarily, this requirement will be satisfied when the defendant is 

‘amenable to process’ in the other jurisdiction.” Id. (quoting Kinney, 674 

So. 2d at 90).

Here, in the Bethels’ affidavits, they stipulate to service and agree to 

submit to the jurisdiction of The Bahamas. An alternative forum is only 

inadequate if the remedy clearly amounts to no remedy at all. Bridgestone, 

991 So. 2d at 917; see also Ciba-Geigy Ltd., 691 So. 2d at 1115 (same). 

Courts have also held that “a forum may be inadequate if it is grossly 

inefficient or given to extreme levels of partiality.” Cellnet 7, Inc. v. Lainez, 

215 So. 3d 137, 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (citation omitted). Gordon 

conceded at the hearing that The Bahamas was an adequate and available 

forum. The Third District also found The Bahamas to be an adequate and 

available forum in Resorts International v. Spinola, 705 So. 2d 629, 630

(Fla. 3d DCA 1998).
7

(2) The “Balance of Private Conveniences”

“With respect to the private interests [Kinney factor], courts begin with 

the presumption that a domestic plaintiff has chosen a sufficiently 

convenient forum, and it is therefore incumbent upon the defendant ‘to 

prove vexation and oppressiveness that are out of all proportion to the 

plaintiff’s convenience.’” Otto Candies, 963 F. 3d 1338–39 (quoting Leon 

v. Million Air, Inc., 251 F.3d 1305, 1314 (11th Cir. 2001)). “A defendant 

invoking forum non conveniens with respect to a domestic plaintiff 

therefore ‘bears a heavy burden in opposing the plaintiff’s chosen forum.’” 

Id. at 1339 (quoting Sinochem Int’l Co., 549 U.S. at 430). “The defendant 

must offer ‘positive evidence of unusually extreme circumstances,’ and the 

district court must be ‘thoroughly convinced that material injustice is 

manifest before exercising any such discretion as may exist to deny a 

United States citizen access to the courts of this country.’” Id. (quoting 

SME Racks, Inc. v. Sistemas Mecanicos Para Electronica, 382 F.3d 1097, 

1101 (11th Cir. 2004)); see also Cortez, 123 So. 3d at 1096 (same). “[W]hen 

the plaintiff is a citizen or resident of the United States, and the alternative 

forum is a foreign country, the defendant’s burden to overcome this 

presumption is especially high.” Cortez, 123 So. 3d at 1096.

In analyzing the private interest factors, “the trial court must weigh the 

‘balance of private conveniences’” and focus on four concerns: “access to 

evidence, access to witnesses, enforcement of judgments, and the 

practicalities and expenses associated with the lawsuit.” Cortez, 123 So. 

3d at 1092 (quoting Kinney, 674 So. 2d at 91); see also Publicidad Vepaco, 

C.A. v. Mezerhane, 176 So. 3d 273, 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (same).

“A correct ‘private interest’ analysis begins with the elements of the 

plaintiff’s causes of action. The court must then consider the necessary 

evidence required to prove and disprove each element.” Abeid-Saba v. 

Carnival Corp., 184 So. 3d 593, 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (quoting Ford v. 

Brown, 319 F.3d 1302, 1308 (11th Cir. 2003)). The court “should make a 

reasoned assessment as to the likely location of such proof.” Abeid-Saba,

184 So. 3d at 605 (quoting Ford, 319 F. 3d at 1308). In assessing the 

access to evidence and witnesses, “the [trial] court must scrutinize the 

substance of the dispute . . . to evaluate what proof is required, and 

determine whether the pieces of evidence cited by the parties are critical, 

or even relevant, to the plaintiff’s cause of action and to any potential 

defenses to the action.” Abeid-Saba, 184 So. 3d at 602 (alteration in 

original) (quoting Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 528 (1988)).

Here, Gordon filed a count for defamation against appellee Ms. Bethel 

and conspiracy to defame against both Mr. and Ms. Bethel. “Defamation 
8

has the following five elements: (1) publication; (2) falsity; (3) actor must 

act . . . at least negligently on a matter concerning a private person; (4) 

actual damages; and (5) statement must be defamatory.” Jews For Jesus, 

Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So. 2d 1098, 1106 (Fla. 2008) (citation omitted). A civil 

conspiracy has the following elements: “(a) a conspiracy between two or 

more parties, (b) to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful 

means, (c) the doing of some overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy, and 

(d) damage to plaintiff as a result of the acts performed pursuant to the 

conspiracy.” Walters v. Blankenship, 931 So. 2d 137, 140 (Fla. 5th DCA 

2006).

The trial court did not look at all the elements necessary for Gordon to 

prove defamation or conspiracy to defame. Instead, the trial court focused 

on the Bethels’ truth defense to defamation, stating:

I understand how you’re saying they posted it there, but 

people read it here. But at the end of the day . . . . It’s all 

defamation. And a defense to defamation is truth and so, you 

would have to look beyond the statements as to what actually 

happened. And when you do that, it’s an incident where your 

client went to the Bahamas and the incident underlying these 

statements all happened in the Bahamas. All the witnesses 

would be in the Bahamas. Bahamian law certainly might 

come into play with that.

By focusing on the truth defense, the court did not consider the 

elements necessary for Gordon to prove defamation. As to element of 

publication, besides the Facebook posts, Gordon alleged that Ms. Bethel 

made phone calls defaming him to GEICO and BoatUS in Florida and in 

the United States which evidence and witnesses would be located in 

Florida or in the United States, not The Bahamas. Further, to prove the 

falsity of Bethel’s allegations of theft, Gordon would have to prove that he 

was the boat’s lawful owner, which requires documents and witnesses in 

Florida. Thus, Gordon’s proof was almost exclusively located in the United 

States and not The Bahamas.

As to damages, Gordon claimed the defamatory statements caused 

harm to “[his] reputation and standing in Florida because he is a Florida 

resident, his business endeavors are based out of Florida, and 

clients/customers of Mr. Gordon are located in Florida.” He also claimed 

damage to his Florida business. The court did not acknowledge that 

Gordon’s damages witnesses would include representatives of GEICO and 

BoatUS who also were located in Florida and the United States.
9

Finally, Ms. Bethel’s statements accused Gordon of being a “crook” and 

of attempting to steal the boat. Accusations of criminal conduct are 

defamatory per se. Blake v. Giustibelli, 182 So. 3d 881, 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2016). Because the trial court did not address the elements of Gordon’s 

claim and instead focused solely on the Bethels’ alleged defense, the court

failed to analyze the private interest factors correctly. See Abeid-Saba, 184 

So. 3d at 605. We conclude the private interest factors favor retaining 

jurisdiction in Florida.

“An examination of private interests, although a term of expansive 

scope, essentially focuses on four concerns: [1] access to evidence, [2] 

access to witnesses, [3] enforcement of judgments, and [4] the 

practicalities and expenses associated with the lawsuit.” Mezerhane, 176 

So. 3d at 278 (alteration original) (quoting Cortez, 123 So. 3d at 1092).

(a) Access to Evidence and Witnesses

Gordon contends that his witnesses were located in Florida and 

elsewhere in the United States as shown in his affidavit and sworn 

amended complaint. These witnesses include but are not limited to: (i) 

himself; (ii) representatives of GEICO and BoatUS, in Florida and 

elsewhere in the U.S., who would testify as to receiving Ms. Bethels’ phone 

calls defaming Mr. Gordon; (iii) representatives of GEICO and BoatUS, in 

Florida and elsewhere in the U.S., who would testify as to the historical 

business relationship with Mr. Gordon prior to the events giving rise to 

this case and the impact the defamatory statements had on the business 

relationship; (iv) representatives of GEICO and BoatUS, in Florida and 

elsewhere in the U.S., who would testify as to the underlying events giving 

rise to this case, such as efforts to salvage the vessel, the purchase of the 

vessel from the original owner, and sale of the vessel to Mr. Gordon; and 

(v) all of the individuals who accessed, liked, shared, and commented upon 

Ms. Bethel’s defamatory Facebook posts in Florida, including the Bethels’ 

daughter residing in Florida. The evidence of Gordon’s title to the boat is 

located in Florida or in the United States. Damage to his business will 

also be located in the United States.

In contrast, the Bethels offered witnesses surrounding Gordon’s 

attempts to recover the vessel in The Bahamas and his immigration status. 

While several persons in The Bahamas may have witnessed what 

happened during the attempts to recover the vessel, the testimony as to 

those events are not elements of Gordon’s defamation cause of action. The

testimony may not even support the truth defense. Whether Gordon acted 

unprofessionally and aggressively or even trespassed to try to obtain the 

boat does not prove that he was a “crook.”
10

As we noted in Nordlict v. Discala, 139 So. 3d 951, 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2014):

[I]t appears that at least one party’s witnesses will be 

inconvenienced or unavailable, depending upon whether the 

action proceeds in Florida or [the alternative forum]. Under 

those circumstances, it can hardly be said that the private 

interests favor the alternative forum, particularly when given 

the deference which must be paid to the plaintiff’s choice of 

forum under Cortez.

(b) Enforcement of Judgments

The court presumed the judgment would be enforced in The Bahamas,

but the parties offered no information on where a judgment would be 

enforced, and the court made no findings as to this factor. Therefore, at 

best, this factor can be considered as immaterial or at equipoise.

(c) The Practicalities and Expense of Litigation

Both sides contend that they will incur more expense in litigating in the 

other forum, and surely that is the case. Gordon’s lawyers and witnesses 

would have to travel to The Bahamas, and the Bethels’ lawyers and 

witnesses would have to travel to Florida. We would suggest, however, 

that with the increased use of technology, these practical considerations

of witness availability and expense may be ameliorated on either side.

What is a more concerning issue is the unavailability of a contingent 

fee agreement in The Bahamas. This is a case of a Florida resident suing 

for defamation received in Florida and causing damage to the resident in 

Florida. Requiring Gordon to employ a Bahamian attorney to bring an 

action in The Bahamas, where contingent fees are not allowed, will make 

the defamation claim significantly more expensive for him to pursue. This 

case is unlike Spinola, where the court discounted the unavailability of a 

contingent fee arrangement for “a foreign party asserting a claim based on 

foreign events against foreign corporations.” 705 So. 2d at 630.

For a Florida resident maintaining an action based upon defamation 

causing damage occurring within Florida, the unavailability of the 

contingent fee is a valid factor to consider as a private interest factor. To 

secure representation in The Bahamas will require a significantly greater 

outlay of resources than handling a case on the contingency basis. On the 

other hand, the Bethels will have attorney expenses as defendants 
11

regardless of forum. As a private interest factor, the cost to Gordon as 

plaintiff is greater in The Bahamas than in his home forum of Florida. 

Therefore, this factor must weigh in Gordon’s favor.

In summary, the trial court was to begin its analysis by balancing the 

private interests of the parties with the presumption that Gordon, a Florida 

plaintiff, had chosen a sufficiently convenient forum. With Gordon being

a United States citizen and the alternative forum being a foreign country, 

the Bethels’ burden to overcome this presumption was “especially high.” 

See Cortez, 123 So. 3d 1096. Here, the Bethels failed to satisfy this 

burden. We conclude after applying the presumption and considering

each private interest factor that the balance of private conveniences 

actually favors Gordon.

(3) Public Interest Factors

Even if private interests would favor the Bethels, we conclude that a 

proper analysis of public interest factors weigh in favor of retaining Florida 

as the proper forum. Florida courts must consider the public interests, 

even where private interests favor the alternative forum. Nordlicht, 139 

So. 3d at 953 (citing Cortez, 123 So. 3d at 1097). The public interest 

factors focus on “whether the case has a general nexus with the forum 

sufficient to justify the forum’s commitment of judicial time and resources 

to it.” Id. at 954. Courts focus on three principles in this analysis:

[F]irst, whether the court can protect its docket from cases 

over which it may be able to assert jurisdiction, but which lack 

significant connection to the forum; second, whether the court 

can legitimately encourage the litigation of controversies in 

the localities where they arose; and third, in considering 

whether to retain jurisdiction over a case, a court may 

consider its familiarity with the law which will have to be 

applied.

Id.

The trial court here did not properly consider these factors, because it 

limited its gaze to the incidents occurring in The Bahamas, rather than 

focusing on the defamation claims in the complaint. Gordon points out 

that he is a Florida resident with his business endeavors centered in 

Broward County. He has clients in the marine industry located in Florida. 

The defamatory statements were read by Florida residents and received by 

his clients in Florida. The boat in question was titled in the United States.
12

This case is similar to Nordlicht. The plaintiffs in Nordlicht alleged that 

the defendants defamed them by tying them to the Scott Rothstein Ponzi 

scheme in Florida through an email, and then the defamatory statements 

were published on an internet blog. 139 So. 3d at 952. Defendants moved 

to dismiss based on forum non conveniens on the basis that the 

statements were first made in New York, and all the defendants resided in 

New York and/or had their principal place of business there. Id. With 

respect to the public interest factor of the forum non conveniens analysis, 

the defendants argued that the email was transmitted in New York.

On review, we noted that the defendants’ statements were broadcast on 

an internet blog and the plaintiffs alleged that defendants knew and 

intended the information reach a wider audience. Id. at 954. Relying on 

Internet Solutions Corp. v. Marshall, 39 So. 3d 1201, 1216 (Fla. 2010), for 

the statement that the tort of defamation in Florida occurs by the posting 

of defamatory statements on a website accessible in Florida and accessed 

in Florida, we held that public interest factors favored Florida as the 

convenient forum because of its nexus to the defamation, the damages, 

and the Rothstein Ponzi scheme:

As this defamation can be considered a tortious act directed 

at Florida and its residents, the courts of Florida should be 

open to its resolution. Thus, consideration of the public 

interest factors does not compel litigating this action in an 

alternative forum.

Id. at 954.

In this case, similar to Nordlicht, the Facebook post was on a website 

accessible to Floridians and accessed in Florida. Further, Florida has a 

strong nexus to the damages since Gordon has alleged that he is a resident 

of Florida with business in Florida, and it is his character and his business 

that has suffered damage. Florida also has a nexus to the underlying facts 

of the vessel’s ownership. Accordingly, the courts of Florida should be 

open to resolve this case.

The Bethels argue that Bahamian courts have a strong public interest 

in adjudicating this dispute because the events occurred in The Bahamas,

involved Bahamians, and likely requires consideration of Bahamian law 

on several issues involving the vessel’s salvage. They assert that the 

Bahamian government has a public policy interest in ensuring that their 

salvage laws are enforced and in protecting Bahamians’ free speech. The 

need to interpret foreign law, however, is not dispositive in considering the 

public interest factor. See Sun Tr. Bank v. Sun Int’l Hotels, Ltd., 184 F. 
13

Supp. 2d 1246, 1266 (S.D. Fla. 2001) (denying dismissal because “there 

are no language barriers to the Court’s understanding of Bahamian law 

and . . . Bahamian law is derived from English common law and has many 

similarities to Florida law.”); Reid-Walen v. Hansen, 933 F.2d 1390, 1401 

(8th. Cir. 1991) (declining to dismiss case governed by Jamaican law 

noting that Jamaican law is descended from British law and contains 

concepts similar to our law with no language barrier). As to the Bahamian 

interest in free speech for its residents, Florida has an equally strong 

interest in protecting its citizens from defamatory speech.

At best, both countries have an interest in this suit, but the Bethels 

must overcome the heavy presumption in favor of the plaintiff’s choice of 

forum. Just as in Nordlicht, the public interest factor does not compel 

litigating this case in a foreign forum.

Conclusion

The Bethels, as defendants, failed to overcome the heavy presumption 

in favor of Gordon’s choice of forum, as plaintiff, particularly where he is 

a Florida resident seeking relief in his home forum for a tort occurring in 

Florida with damages accruing in this state. The court abused its 

discretion in dismissing his claim. We reverse and remand for 

reinstatement of the complaint against the Bethels.

Reversed and remanded.

GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.