[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-11321

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

PAUL FOSHEE, 

as temporary administrator of 

the estate of Mira Foshee, Paul Foshee,

individually,

SOUME FOSHEE, 

individually,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

WALTER LEE BANKS,

individually,

LA PAZ WATERFALL & PEACE LODGE, 

a foreign corporation,

JARDINES DE LA CATARATA, 

USCA11 Case: 22-11321 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 12/09/2022 Page: 1 of 11
2 Opinion of the Court 22-11321

a foreign corporation,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 0:20-cv-62699-WPD

____________________

Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Paul and Soume Foshee appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing their wrongful death case against Appellees Walter Banks, La Paz Waterfall & Peace Lodge, and Jardines 

de la Catarata. The district court held that it did not have personal 

jurisdiction over La Paz Waterfall & Peace Lodge and Jardines de 

la Catarata (“The Lodge”). The district court dismissed the entire 

lawsuit under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

While on a family trip to Costa Rica, Appellants were walking along a paved pathway on the Lodge’s premises with their two 

children when a dead or diseased tree suddenly fell and struck the 

head of their 14-year-old daughter Mira Foshee, resulting in her 

death soon afterwards. Appellants alleged that Appellees were 

negligent in failing to perform forest studies; in failing to maintain 

USCA11 Case: 22-11321 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 12/09/2022 Page: 2 of 11
22-11321 Opinion of the Court 3

and repair the tree; in creating an unsafe and dangerous condition 

at the premises; in failing to cut down the tree; and in failing to 

close off the pathway. 

I.

We review a district court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction 

de novo and its factual findings for clear error. AcryliCon USA, 

LLC v. Silikal GmbH, 985 F.3d 1350, 1363 (11th Cir. 2021) “A plaintiff seeking the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident 

defendant bears the initial burden of alleging in the complaint sufficient facts to make out a prima facie case of jurisdiction. Where, 

as here, the defendant challenges jurisdiction by submitting affidavit evidence in support of its position, the burden traditionally 

shifts back to the plaintiff to produce evidence supporting jurisdiction.” Diamond Crystal Brands, Inc. v. Food Movers Int’l, Inc., 593 

F.3d 1249, 1257 (11th Cir. 2010) (internal citations and quotations 

omitted).

“A federal court sitting in diversity undertakes a two-step inquiry in determining whether personal jurisdiction exists: the exercise of jurisdiction must (1) be appropriate under the state long-arm 

statute and (2) not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. When a federal court uses a state long-arm statute, because the extent of the 

statute is governed by state law, the federal court is required to 

construe it as would the state’s supreme court.” Id. at 1257-58 (quotations and citations omitted).

USCA11 Case: 22-11321 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 12/09/2022 Page: 3 of 11
4 Opinion of the Court 22-11321

“A court may assert general jurisdiction1 over foreign (sister-state or foreign-country) corporations, without offending due 

process when their affiliations with the State are so continuous and 

systematic as to render them essentially at home in the forum 

State.” Waite v. All Acquisition Corp., 901 F.3d 1307, 1317 (11th 

Cir. 2018) (internal citations and quotations omitted). However, 

“only a limited set of affiliations with a forum” will render a defendant at home there. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 137, 

(2014). The corporation’s place of incorporation and its principal 

place of business form the “paradigm all-purpose forums.” Id. Beyond those two, there would have to be an “exceptional case.” For 

example, a defendant’s operations would have to “be so substantial 

and of such a nature as to render the corporation at home in that 

State.” BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 581 U.S. 402, 137 S. Ct. 1549, 1558 

(2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus the burden of 

proving an exceptional case is heavy and “even ‘substantial, continuous, and systematic’ business is insufficient to make a company 

‘at home’ in the state.” Waite, 901 F.3d at 1317-18. We have held 

that no exceptional situation existed where the defendant had a 

Florida bank account, had two Florida addresses, purchased insurance from Florida companies, filed financial statements with the 

Florida Secretary of State, and joined a trade organization based in 

1 In the district court and on appeal, Appellants argue only for general jurisdiction, and do not argue for specific jurisdiction. Accordingly, any claim under specific jurisdiction is abandoned.

USCA11 Case: 22-11321 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 12/09/2022 Page: 4 of 11
22-11321 Opinion of the Court 5

Florida. Carmouche v. Tamborlee Management, Inc., 789 F.3d 

1201 (11th Cir. 2015).

Here, the Defendant business, La Paz Waterfall & Peace 

Lodge and Jardines de la Catarata, is a Costa Rican corporation 

with its principal place of business in Costa Rica.2 As the district 

court recounted, Appellees provided an unrebutted affidavit declaring the business had never operated, conducted, engaged in, or 

carried on business in Florida or the United States. Further, it solicits business worldwide and does not specifically target Florida; it 

has no financial or legal relationship with the Lago Mar Resort in 

Florida; it does not maintain offices or employ anyone outside of 

Costa Rica; it does not have a registered agent or mailing address 

in Florida; and it has never entered into contracts, owned a bank 

account, owned any assets, incurred or paid any local or state taxes, 

held any licenses, or leased any property in Florida. In light of that 

unrebutted evidence and the heavy burden imposed by precedent, 

Appellants’ argument based on a Florida citizen’s ownership of the 

corporation, the perceived Florida reservation system, and the advertisement that the lodge was a sister corporation to the Florida 

Lago Mar Resort do not rise to the level of “substantial, continuous, and systematic business” that would bring the Defendant corporation under the exceptional case. Therefore, the district court 

2 As recounted in the district court opinion, although the complaint lists the 

two as separate corporate entities, they assert they are one and the Appellants 

make no arguments in opposition.

USCA11 Case: 22-11321 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 12/09/2022 Page: 5 of 11
6 Opinion of the Court 22-11321

was correct that the Appellants have not established personal jurisdiction over the Defendant corporation.

II.

We review forum non conveniens dismissals for abuse of 

discretion, giving the district court’s decision substantial deference. 

Leon v. Millon Air, Inc., 251 F.3d 1305, 1310 (11th Cir. 2001). The 

party moving for dismissal must demonstrate that an adequate alternative forum is available, public and private factors weigh in favor of dismissal, and the plaintiff can reinstate his suit in the alternative forum without undue inconvenience or prejudice. Id. The 

Appellants here do not challenge the fact that the Costa Rican forum is available and adequate, nor do they challenge that they can 

reinstate their action there. Thus, the only issue before us with 

respect to forum non conveniens is the balancing of the private and 

public interest factors against the presumption in favor of a United 

States citizen’s choice of a United States forum.

In Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947), the Supreme Court outlined the relevant public and private interest factors. The Court set out this non-exhaustive list of considerations 

to be weighed when determining the private interest factors:

Important considerations are 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; possibility 

of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to 

USCA11 Case: 22-11321 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 12/09/2022 Page: 6 of 11
22-11321 Opinion of the Court 7

the action; and all other practical problems that make 

trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive. 

There may also be questions as to the enforceability 

of a judgment if one is obtained. The court will weigh 

relative advantages and obstacles to fair trial. It is often said that the plaintiff may not, by choice of an inconvenient forum, ‘vex,’ ‘harass,’ or ‘oppress’ the defendant by inflicting upon him expense or trouble not 

necessary to his own right to pursue his remedy.

Id. at 508. “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. Lastly, the court should make a reasoned assessment 

as to the likely location of such proof.” Ford v. Brown, 319 F.3d 

1302, 1308 (11th Cir. 2003). The “relative ease of access to sources 

of proof” is “[p]erhaps the most important private interest of the 

litigants.” Id.

The Supreme Court continued with public factors to be considered:

Administrative difficulties follow for courts when litigation is piled up in congested centers instead of being handled at its origin. Jury duty is a burden that 

ought not to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation. In 

cases which touch the affairs of many persons, there 

is reason for holding the trial in their view and reach 

USCA11 Case: 22-11321 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 12/09/2022 Page: 7 of 11
8 Opinion of the Court 22-11321

rather than in remote parts of the country where they 

can learn of it by report only. There is a local interest 

in having localized controversies decided at home. 

There is an appropriateness, too, in having the trial of 

a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the 

state law that must govern the case, rather than having a court in some other forum untangle problems 

in conflict of laws, and in law foreign to itself.

330 U.S. at 508-09. 

The plaintiff’s choice of forum “should rarely be disturbed” 

and defendants must show manifest injustice and provide “positive 

evidence of unusually extreme circumstances.” SME Racks, Inc. v. 

Sistemas Mecanicos Para Electronica, S.A., 382 F.3d 1097, 1101 

(11th Cir. 2004). However, the Supreme Court has cautioned that 

“dismissal is not automatically barred when a plaintiff has filed suit 

in his home forum.” Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 256 

n.23 (1981). 

Here, Appellants argue that the district court employed an 

incorrect forum—that of Florida rather than the United States—

when contrasting with the forum of Costa Rica. They also argue 

that the court unreasonably found the compulsory process factor 

favored Costa Rica, and misapplied other private interest factors. 

They also argue that the court improperly weighed the public interest factors.

USCA11 Case: 22-11321 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 12/09/2022 Page: 8 of 11
22-11321 Opinion of the Court 9

Although Appellants are correct that the district court 

should have used the United States as the forum to contrast with 

Costa Rica, see Esfeld v. Costa Corciere, SPA, 289 F.3d 1300, 1303 

(11th Cir. 2002), this mistake did not undermine its crucial reasoning. And it did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the action 

under the forum non conveniens doctrine. Looking at the elements of the causes of action that the Appellants brought, the court 

correctly assessed the central issue of the case would be the standard of care for maintaining or inspecting a tree in a rainforest, and 

the application of that standard to the facts of this case. Another 

issue would be the cause of death. Evidence about those issues is 

found almost exclusively in Costa Rica. As the court noted, all acts 

of alleged negligence took place in Costa Rica; all witnesses besides 

Appellants reside in Costa Rica. All documentary evidence is in 

Costa Rica; the post-accident investigation was conducted and the 

resulting reports are in Costa Rica; and all relevant medical records 

are in Costa Rica. Similarly, only the Appellants and their son are 

located in the United States; all of the other witnesses are in Costa 

Rica. Although Appellants argue that as eye-witnesses to the accident, they are the most important witnesses, this is not necessarily 

so. There apparently is no dispute but that the tree fell on and injured Mira. And there is little else, if anything, that the Foshees can 

add about the state of the tree before the accident or the measures 

the Appellees took to ensure the safety of visitors. In sum, the district court was correct that the crucial evidence was almost exclusively found in Costa Rica. 

USCA11 Case: 22-11321 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 12/09/2022 Page: 9 of 11
10 Opinion of the Court 22-11321

Additionally, the compulsory process factor favors the Costa 

Rican forum. With no personal jurisdiction over the Lodge, the 

primary defendant in the case is no longer before the Florida district court.3 But, even if there were personal jurisdiction over the 

Lodge, there were a significant number of witnesses who were not 

employees of the Lodge and over which there would be no compulsory process to testify in Florida. 

In both of its orders, the district court included a comprehensive discussion of the private interest factors and a balancing of 

same against the presumption in favor of a United States plaintiff’s 

choice of a United States forum. We cannot say the district court

abused its discretion in concluding that the private interests 

weighed strongly in favor of a Costa Rican forum.4 Similarly, we 

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

weighing the public interest factors. Because the court did not 

3 It appears that defendant Banks may merely be the sole shareholder of the 

Lodge, which is apparently a corporate entity. A motion to dismiss for failure 

to state a claim in the absence of allegations piercing the corporate veil was 

filed in the district court, but the district court did not rule on it.

4 To the extent that Appellants argue that the Appellees were required to submit affidavits setting forth the witnesses’ testimony, that argument is not supported by the case law. The Supreme Court in Piper stated that “defendants 

must provide enough information to enable the District Court to balance the 

parties’ interests.” 454 U.S. at 258. The information Appellees submitted allowed the district court to evaluate the potential content of the witnesses’ testimony and evaluate its value.

USCA11 Case: 22-11321 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 12/09/2022 Page: 10 of 11
22-11321 Opinion of the Court 11

abuse its discretion in weighing the private and public interest factors, it did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for forum non conveniens.

AFFIRMED.5

5 The Lodge’s Motion for Damages and Double Costs is DENIED.

USCA11 Case: 22-11321 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 12/09/2022 Page: 11 of 11