FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 11 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 15019

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 2 - 2 1 9 3 1 - C V - K MM L I S A , S .A ., aP a n a m a n ia n c o rp o r a tio n , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s D I O N I S I O G U T I E R R E Z M A Y O R G A , J U A N J O S E G U T I E R R E Z M A Y O R G A , I V A N B O E H M E , L U I S F E RN A N D O V I L L A V E R D E , MAR I A E S P E R AN Z A MAY OR GA D E G U T I E R R E Z , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 11, 2007)Honora ble Donald E. Walter, United States District Judg e for the Western District of * L ouisiana, sitting by

designation. 2 B ef ore C A RN E S and W IL S O N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and W A L T E R , D i stri ctJudg e. * P E R C U R I A M: B e f or e us f orr e vi e w i s the j udgm e ntof the di s tr i c tc our tdi s m i s s i ng on f orum non c onve ni e ns gr ounds the l a w s ui tf i l e d by L i s a , S . A . a ga i ns tva r i ous i nd i vi du al and corpo ra t e def endant s. W e a ff

ord d i stri ctcourt s “ subst ant i al di s c r e t i on” i n f

orum non c onve ni e ns m a tt e r s , L e on v. M i l l on A i r , I nc . , 251 F . 3d 1305, 1310 ( 11th C i r . 2001) , a nd w i l l r e ve r s e onl y f orac l e a rabus e of

di s c r e t i on, M em breno v . C ost a C roci er e S . P . A . , 42 5 F . 3d 93 2, 93 5– 36 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( per c u r ia m ) . L i s a , S . A . c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ts houl d notha ve gr a nt e d the di s m i s s a l be c aus e the de f e nda nt s de l a y e d f

i l i ng the i rm ot i on t o di s m i s s on f orum non c onve ni e ns gr ounds a nd tha tde l a y c aus e d i ts e ve r e pr e j udi c e . T hi s c ont e nt i on is n o t p r o p e r ly b e f

o r e u s b e c au s e L is aS .A . f a ile d to r a is e it in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. U ni t ed S t at es v. Z i nn , 32 1 F . 3d 10 84 , 10 90 n. 7 (11 th C i r. 20 03 ) ( “ the di stri ctcourt is n o t e x p e c te d to r e a d m in d s o rin d e p e n d e n tly c o n c e iv e o f e v e ry p o s s ib le a r gum e ntapa r ty m i ghtr a i s e ” ) ; U . S . E qua l E m pl oy m e ntO ppor tuni ty C om m ’ n v. W & O , Inc. , 21 3 F . 3d 60 0, 62 0 (11 th C i r. 20 00 ) ( “ F ai l ure t o rai se an i ss ue, o b je c tio n o rth e o ry o f

r e lie f in th e f ir s t in s ta n c e to th e tr ia l c o u r t g e n e r a lly is f a ta l.”3

(quo t at i on om i tt ed)) ; Irvi ng v. M az da M ot or C orp. , 13 6 F . 3d 76 4, 76 9 (11 th C i r. 1998) ( “ W e c a nnota l l ow P l a i nt i f f t o a r gue adi f

f e r e ntc a s e f

r om the c a s e s he p r e s e n te d to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. B e c au s e P la in tif f f a ile d to m a k e th is a r g u m e n t in the di s tr i c tc our t , w e de c l i ne t o c ons i de ri the r e . ” ) ; S t e w a r tv. D e p’ tof H e a l th & H um a n S e rvs . , 26 F . 3d 115, 115 ( 11th C i r . 1994) ( “ J udi c i a l e c onom y i s s e rve d a nd prej ud i ce avoi ded b y bi nd i ng the part i es t o the fa ct s pre se nt ed and the theori es a r g u e d b e lo w .” ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) ) . L i sa , S . A . ’ s a ss ert i on thati tdi d m ake thi s a rgum enti n the di stri ctcourt

“ tho ug h adm i tt edl y i nart ful l y s t at ed, ” e ss ent i al l y c on ce des thatthe ar gu m entw as notc l e a r l y pr e s e nt e d. C l e a rpr e s e nt a t i on i s r e qui r e d. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H ous t on, 456 F . 3d 1328, 1338 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( al i t i ga ntw i th apr opos i t i on t o pr e s s on the di s tr i c tc our t“ s houl d r a i s e tha tpoi nti n s uc h c l e a ra nd s i m pl e l a ngua ge tha tthe tri al courtm ayno tm i sund er st and i t , ” a nd “ [w ] e genera l l y do n otaddres s on app ea l a r gum e nt s notc l e a r l y pr e s e nt e d t o the di s tr i c tc our t ” ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) ) . I n a ny event , w e w ou l d n otbe pers uaded b y the ar gu m enteven i f i tw er e properl y bef ore us , be c a us e the r e w a s no undue de l a y . T he de f e nda nt s f i l e d the i rf

orum non c onve ni e ns m ot i on l e s s tha n am onth a f t e rthi s C our ti s s ue d i t s m a nda t e va c a t i ng th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s s ta y o f th e p r o c e e d in g s . L is aS .A a ls o c o n te n d s th a t it d o e s n o t h a v e a n a v a ilab le r e m e d y in4

G ua t e m a l a . O r di na r i l y , the a va i l abi l i ty r e qui r e m e nt“ w i l l be s a t i s f i e d w he n the de f e nda nti s ‘ a m e nabl e t o pr oc e s s ’ i n the othe rj ur i s di c t i on. ” P i pe rA i r c r a f tC o. v. R ey no , 45 4 U . S . 23 5, 25 4 n . 22 , 10 2 S . C t . 25 2, 26 5 n . 22 (198 1). T he di stri ctcourt f o u n d th a t th e d e f

e n d a n ts ’ c o n s e n t to G u a te m a la n ju r is d ic tio n m a d e th e m a m e n ab le t o pr oc e s s the r e , w hi c h w a s af i ndi ng i tw a s f

r e e t o m a ke f

r om the c onf

l i c t i ng e x p e r t a f f id a v its th a t w e r e f

ile d o n th e s u b

je c t. S a tz v . M c D o n n e ll D o u g la s C o rp ., 244 F . 3d 1279, 1282–83 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ; s e e a l s o F or d v. B r ow n, 319 F . 3d 1302, 1310–11 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . B e s i de s , the di s m i s s a l w i thout p r e ju d ic e , w h ic h p e rm itte d L is aS .A . to r e in s ta te th e c a s e if it w a s u n ab le to r e f

ile in G u a te m a la , p r o te c te d it. F o r d , 3 1 9 F .3 d a t 1 3 1 0

– 1 1 . N o ra r e w e c o n v in c e d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n in c onc l udi ng tha tthe G ua t e m a l a n j udi c i a l s y s t e m pr ovi de d a n a de qua t e a l t e rna t i ve forum for the l aw sui t . L i saS . A . ’ s e vi dence di d n otcl ea rl y e st abl i sh t o the contra ry and, as the di stri ctcourtpo i nt ed ou t , every c ou rtt o add re ss the i ss ue has r ea ched th e s a m e c o n c lu s io n . W h ile th e G u a te m a la n c o u r ts a r e n o t p e r f e c t, “[ a ]n a d e q u a te f orum ne e d notbe ape r f e c tf orum . ” S a t z , 244 F . 3d a t1283. A F F I R M E D .