Case Name: PEARL CRUISES, et al., Appellants, v. Belle BESTOR, et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1996-06-19
Citations: 678 So. 2d 372
Docket Number: No. 95-2741
Parties: PEARL CRUISES, et al., Appellants, v. Belle BESTOR, et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and LEVY, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 678
Pages: 372–374

Head Matter:
PEARL CRUISES, et al., Appellants, v. Belle BESTOR, et al., Appellees.
No. 95-2741.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
June 19, 1996.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 11, 1996.
Horr, Linfors & Skipp and David J. Horr and Christopher J. Bailey, Miami, for appellants.
Podhurst, Orseck, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow, Olin & Perwin and Joel S. Perwin, Miami, for appellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and LEVY, JJ.

Opinion:
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The plaintiffs-appellees are California citizens who, through their travel agent in Massachusetts, booked passage on an Italian liner for a Western Pacific cruise which began in Singapore. When the ship docked in Vietnam, they arranged with the vessel for an excursion ashore in a private vehicle. The car was involved in a traffic accident and they were injured. They sued the shipowner, an Italian corporation, and four foreign agents of the line in the Dade County circuit court and duly served process upon them. The defendants moved to dismiss the case without prejudice under the forum non con-veniens doctrine. Although the defendants have consented to the jurisdiction of the courts of Italy, the home of the corporate shipowner, and waived reliance on any statute of limitations, the trial judge denied the motion. We reverse.
On the basis of a mere recital of the operative facts, which involve no meaningful relationship to Florida whatever, the maintenance of this case involves the epitome of the abuse of our courts which the Supreme Court decision in Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 674 So.2d 86 revised, 658 So.2d 991 (1996) has so salutarily forbidden. On the authority of that decision, we hold that the cause must be dismissed.
We reject plaintiffs' claim that the alternative forum proposed by the defendants, Italy, is so inappropriate that its availability does not overcome the weight of the plaintiffs' choice of forum. It is obvious that because Florida's interests in this litigation are next to non-existent, Italy's, which include the very substantial one of concern for its own domiciliari.es, see Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981); Kinney, 674 So.2d at 87-88 are substantially more significant than those of this state. When, as here, a "balancing" of both the Kinney private and public interests so clearly requires dismissal, it is necessary only that "an adequate alternate forum exists which possesses jurisdiction over the whole case." See Kinney, 674 So.2d at 94 (proposed Rule 1.061(a)(1)). Italy indubitably qualifies on that score. Finally, one may observe that if the plaintiffs find the Italian forum unattractive, they are free to bring suit in any other jurisdiction which will entertain it.
Accordingly, the order below is reversed with directions to grant the motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens.
Reversed.
LEVY, J., concurs.
. Kinney was decided after the rulings below.
.The importance of this factor is demonstrated by the holdings under pre-Kinney Florida law, see Seaboard Coast Line R.R. v. Swain, 362 So.2d 17 (Fla.1978); Houston v. Caldwell, 359 So.2d 858 (Fla.l978)(citing Adams v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 224 So.2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)), that the mere fact that Florida was the corporate defendant's state of incorporation or principal place of business absolutely precluded the application of the forum non conveniens doctrine because a corporation could not be "inconvenienced" defending an action in its home state.