Case Name: INTCOMEX HOLDINGS, LLC, etc., Appellant, v. GRANT THORNTON INTERNATIONAL, etc., et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2006-05-03
Citations: 933 So. 2d 1155
Docket Number: No. 3D05-1628
Parties: INTCOMEX HOLDINGS, LLC, etc., Appellant, v. GRANT THORNTON INTERNATIONAL, etc., et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before GERSTEN, FLETCHER, and CORTINAS, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 933
Pages: 1155–1155

Head Matter:
INTCOMEX HOLDINGS, LLC, etc., Appellant, v. GRANT THORNTON INTERNATIONAL, etc., et al., Appellees.
No. 3D05-1628.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 3, 2006.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Aug. 4, 2006.
Adorno & Yoss and John Arrastia, Jr. and Jack R. Reiter, Miami, for appellant.
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham and Jeffrey T. Kucera; Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw and Javier H. Rubinstein, Nicola Jackson, and Violeta I. Balan (Chicago); Burlington, Weil, Schwiep, Kaplan & Blonsky and Kevin C. Kaplan, Miami, for appellees.
Before GERSTEN, FLETCHER, and CORTINAS, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We find that the trial court's decision to dismiss Appellant's second amended complaint for forum non conveniens did not constitute a "clear abuse of discretion." See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 257, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981). "[W]here the [trial] court has considered all relevant public and private interest factors, and where its balancing of these factors is reasonable, its decision deserves substantial deference." Id.
Affirmed.