[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-13166

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

SANDRA FRANK, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DRURY HOTELS COMPANY, LLC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 3:20-cv-00982-BJD-PDB

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-13166 Date Filed: 09/02/2022 Page: 1 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 21-13166

Before ROSENBAUM, ANDERSON, and EDMONDSON, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this slip-and-fall case, Plaintiff Sandra Frank appeals the 

district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s civil action against Drury Hotels Co., LLC (“Drury Hotels”). The district court determined that 

Plaintiff’s complaint was time-barred by the applicable statute of 

limitations. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm. 

On 29 July 2017, Plaintiff “slipped and fell on a pool of water” 

while visiting the Drury Inn and Suites in Valdosta, Georgia. On 

29 July 2020, Plaintiff -- a Florida resident -- filed this lawsuit in Florida state court. Plaintiff asserted a claim for negligence against 

Drury Hotels.

Drury Hotels removed the case to federal district court 

based on diversity jurisdiction. Drury Hotels then moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. Drury Hotels argued that Plaintiff’s negligence claim was governed by Georgia law -- not Florida law -- and

was barred by Georgia’s two-year statute-of-limitations. 

The district court granted Drury Hotels’ motion to dismiss. 

The district court noted that the viability of Plaintiff’s complaint 

hinged on whether Plaintiff’s tort action was governed by Georgia 

law (which applies a two-year statute-of-limitations) or by Florida 

USCA11 Case: 21-13166 Date Filed: 09/02/2022 Page: 2 of 6
21-13166 Opinion of the Court 3

law (which applies a four-year statute-of-limitations).1 The district 

court concluded that the choice-of-law factors weighed in favor of 

applying Georgia law. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint as time-barred by the applicable statute-of-limitations.

We review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in 

the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Michel v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 816 F.3d 686, 694 (11th Cir. 2016). We review de novo a 

choice-of-law determination and review the underlying factual 

findings for clear error. See Grupo Televisa, S.A. v. Telemundo 

Commc’ns Grp., Inc., 485 F.3d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 2007).

“A federal court sitting in diversity will apply the conflict-oflaws rules of the forum state” -- in this case, Florida. See id. at 1240. 

When faced with a conflict of laws in a tort case, Florida courts 

apply the “most significant relationship” test outlined in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §§ 145 and 146. Id.; Bishop 

v. Fla. Specialty Paint Co., 389 So. 2d 999, 1001 (Fla. 1980). 

Under the “most significant relationship” test, courts examine four factual “contacts” in determining which state has the most 

significant relationship to the events and to the parties: “(a) the 

place where the injury occurred, (b) the place where the conduct 

causing the injury occurred, (c) the domicil, residence, nationality, 

1 See O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33 (providing a two-year statute-of-limitations for personal injury claims); Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(a) (providing a four-year statute-oflimitations for negligence claims). 

USCA11 Case: 21-13166 Date Filed: 09/02/2022 Page: 3 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 21-13166

place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and (d) 

the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.” Grupo, 485 F.3d at 1240. These contacts are “evaluated 

according to their relative importance with respect to the particular 

issue” and are “to be taken into account” in applying the policy 

principles outlined in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws 

§ 6.2 Id.; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145 (Am. Law 

Inst. 1988). 

In a personal injury action, courts will apply “the local law 

of the state where the injury occurred” unless another state “has a 

more significant relationship” to the issue. See Bishop, 389 So. 2d 

2 The choice-of-law principles outlined in section 6 include, but are 

not limited to: 

(a) the needs of interstate and international systems, 

(b) the relevant policies of the forum, 

(c) the relevant policies of other interested states and the relative interests of those states in the determinations of the particular issue, 

(d) the protection of justified expectations, 

(e) the basic policies underlying the particular field of law,

(f) certainty, predictability and uniformity of result, and 

(g) ease in the determination and application of the law to be 

applied. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 6. 

USCA11 Case: 21-13166 Date Filed: 09/02/2022 Page: 4 of 6
21-13166 Opinion of the Court 5

at 1001 (citing Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 146); 

Mezroub v. Capella, 702 So. 2d 562, 565 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997). 

The district court concluded properly that this case is governed by Georgia law. Because Plaintiff’s personal injury occurred 

in Georgia, the standard rule means that Georgia law applies to 

Plaintiff’s negligence claim unless Florida has a more significant relationship to the case. See Bishop, 389 So. 2d at 1001; Mezroub, 

702 So. 2d at 565. 

Three of the “contacts” identified in section 145 weigh in favor of applying Georgia law to Plaintiff’s tort claim. Plaintiff’s injury occurred in Georgia. The conduct causing Plaintiff’s injury --

the alleged failure by hotel staff in Georgia to clean the spill -- also 

occurred in Georgia.3 The relationship between Plaintiff and 

Drury Hotels was also “centered” in Georgia. Although Plaintiff 

says she booked her hotel reservation online from her home in 

Florida, the relationship between Plaintiff and Drury Hotels 

stemmed chiefly from Plaintiff’s visit to Georgia and from the injury Plaintiff sustained while Plaintiff was a guest of Drury Hotels 

in Georgia. 

3 The district court committed no error in rejecting Plaintiff’s hypothetical 

assertion -- based on speculative facts not alleged in the complaint -- that some 

out-of-state company policy might have contributed to the spill that resulted 

in Plaintiff’s injury. 

USCA11 Case: 21-13166 Date Filed: 09/02/2022 Page: 5 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 21-13166

The remaining “contact” -- dealing with the residence of the 

parties -- favors neither state because Plaintiff is a resident of Florida 

and Drury Hotel’s place of business is in Georgia. 

Considering these pertinent contacts in conjunction with 

the policy considerations outlined in section 6 of the Restatement, 

we cannot conclude that Florida’s relationship to this case is “more 

significant” than that of Georgia. Applying the “significant relationship” test, the district court concluded properly that Plaintiff’s 

negligence claim is governed by Georgia law. Plaintiff’s complaint 

(filed three years after Plaintiff’s injury) was thus subject to dismissal as time-barred under Georgia’s two-year statute-of-limitations. 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 21-13166 Date Filed: 09/02/2022 Page: 6 of 6