Court Opinion

ID: 9951437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-16 07:05:43.09498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:40:26.240565
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                      Case No. 5D23-2000
                  LT Case No.2023-CA-010140
                         CORRECTED
                 _____________________________

DEAN REIBER,

    Appellant,

    v.

CAMILLA MAURITA YAMASAKI,

    Appellee.
                 _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County.
Curt Jacobus, Judge.

Adam Kravitz, of Kravitz & Co., PA, Miami Beach, for Appellant.

Mark S. Peters, of Eisenmenger, Robinson, Blaue & Peters, P.A.,
Viera, for Appellee.

                         March 15, 2024

BOATWRIGHT, J.

    Appellant, Dean Reiber (“Reiber”), challenges the trial court’s
order granting Appellee’s, Camilla Yamasaki’s (“Yamasaki”),
motion to dismiss his civil complaint against her on the basis of
forum non conveniens. For the reasons described herein, we
reverse.
                                 I.

     Reiber, a Texas resident, filed a civil complaint against
Yamasaki, a Florida resident, in Brevard County, Florida (the
“complaint”). In the complaint, Reiber alleged the following facts.
Reiber met Yamasaki in Costa Rica, where they became involved
in a romantic relationship. Reiber subsequently purchased a
residential condominium unit in Belize (the “condo”). Reiber and
Yamasaki resided together at the condo for a short time thereafter
before their romantic relationship ended. Reiber spent some time
in the United States before returning to Belize to tie up some
affairs at the condo. This included changing the locks in an effort
to prevent Yamasaki from entering the condo. Yamasaki, who was
accompanied by her cousin, later broke into the condo by smashing
a glass door. During the incident, Yamasaki’s cousin physically
attacked Reiber. Two Belizean policemen, who had been alerted to
the situation by a neighbor, entered the apartment and arrested
Yamasaki and her cousin. Yamasaki and her cousin were charged
in Belize as a result of this incident.

       Based on this incident, Reiber initially filed a civil action
against Yamasaki in Belize. He subsequently filed the complaint
in Brevard County, in which he alleged actions for assault, battery,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment,
invasion of privacy, and civil conspiracy. In his jurisdictional
allegations, Reiber averred that Yamasaki is a resident of Brevard
County and also maintains a business in Brevard County. In
support of his causes of action, Reiber alleged that as a result of
the attack, he suffered severe physical injuries which resulted in
long-term pain and suffering; and that he additionally experienced
overwhelming bouts of anxiety and deep depression, causing him
to suffer from insomnia and panic attacks. He additionally averred
that he had suffered financial loss because the trauma from the
attack had materially affected his ability to manage his financial
and business affairs.

     Yamasaki responded to Reiber’s complaint with a motion to
dismiss wherein she argued, inter alia, that the complaint should
be dismissed for forum non conveniens. In support of this
argument, Yamasaki seemingly acknowledged that Florida would

                                 2
be a more convenient forum for her than Belize, but nonetheless
contended that Belize was the more convenient forum because the
attack had occurred in Belize, and all of the relevant witnesses
would thus necessarily be located in Belize. She additionally urged
the trial court to strongly weigh against Reiber the fact that he had
previously filed a civil action against her in Belize. At a hearing on
Yamaski’s motion to dismiss, other than her counsel’s arguments,
Yamaski offered no evidence or sworn testimony to support her
motion. Reiber’s counsel objected that absent evidence or sworn
testimony, Yamasaki’s motion should be denied. The trial court
disagreed and granted Yamasaki’s motion, relying solely on
counsel’s arguments and the inferences drawn from the face of the
complaint. In its order dismissing Reiber’s complaint for forum non
conveniens, the trial court repeatedly referred to the initial filing
in Belize. The court did not appear to accord any degree of
deference to Reiber’s selection of Florida as his preferred forum,
and it additionally seemed to wholly disregard Yamasaki’s
concession that it would be more convenient for her to litigate in
Florida than in Belize.

                                 II.

       The common law doctrine of forum non conveniens, which
translates to mean “inconvenient forum,” is an equitable, judicially
crafted rule designed to allow a court which “technically has
jurisdiction over a suit” to dismiss, in certain limited
circumstances, the suit if “the cause of action [would] be more
fairly and conveniently litigated elsewhere.” Kinney Sys., Inc. v.
Cont’l Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 86, 87 (Fla. 1996). In Kinney, the Florida
Supreme Court articulated the following four-pronged test for
courts to employ when evaluating whether a suit filed in Florida
should be dismissed for forum non conveniens:

    [1] As a prerequisite, the court must establish whether an
    adequate alternative forum exists which possesses
    jurisdiction over the whole case. [2] Next, the trial judge
    must consider all relevant factors of private interest,
    weighing in the balance a strong presumption against
    disturbing plaintiffs’ initial forum choice. [3] If the trial
    judge finds this balance of private interests in equipoise
    or near equipoise, he must then determine whether or not

                                  3
    factors of public interest tip the balance in favor of a trial
    in [another] forum. [4] If he decides that the balance
    favors such a ... forum, the trial judge must finally ensure
    that plaintiffs can reinstate their suit in the alternative
    forum without undue inconvenience or prejudice.

Id. at 90 (quoting Pain v. United Techs. Corp., 637 F.2d 775, 784–
85 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). This four-pronged test, which is set forth
in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061(a), is commonly referred
to as the “Kinney test.”

      The Florida Supreme Court subsequently explained that to
properly apply the Kinney test, courts must afford a strong
presumption to the plaintiff’s choice of forum when evaluating the
“balance of private interests” factor. Cortez v. Palace Resorts, Inc.,
123 So. 3d 1085, 1092–93 (Fla. 2013). Notably, this presumption
applies not only to Florida residents, but additionally extends to
out-of-state residents who have elected to file suit in Florida. Id. at
1094 (explaining that the Florida Supreme Court “did not limit
this presumption in Kinney to Florida plaintiffs or indicate in any
way that the policy behind this rule would automatically be
eviscerated by applying it to out-of-state residents”). Additionally,
the presumption holds especially true when the plaintiff is a
United States citizen and the alternative forum is in another
country. Id. at 1095 (holding that “the presumption in favor of the
plaintiffs’ initial forum choice in balancing the private interests is
at its strongest when the plaintiffs are citizens, residents, or
corporations of this country”) (quoting Wilson v. Island Seas Invss.,
Ltd., 590 F.3d 1264, 1270 (11th Cir. 2009)). As the Florida
Supreme Court has stated, “it is difficult to understand how or why
a United States plaintiff's choice of a United States forum can or
should be overcome in favor of a forum in another country, thereby
effectively denying that plaintiff access to United States courts.”
Id. at 1094. See also Abeid-Saba v. Carnival Corp., 184 So. 3d 593,
601 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (applying the exceptionally strong
presumption in favor of a citizen’s choice to file suit in the United
States and explaining: “The Eleventh Circuit has held that a
reviewing court ‘require[s] positive evidence of unusually extreme
circumstances, and should be thoroughly convinced that a material
injustice is manifest before exercising any … discretion as may
exist to deny a United States Citizen access to the courts of this

                                  4
country.” (quoting SME Racks, Inc. v. Sistemas Mecanicos Para
Electronica, S.A., 382 F.3d 1097, 1101 (11th Cir. 2004))).
Therefore, in cases “involving a non-Florida plaintiff” who is a
United States citizen, “the presumption in favor of the plaintiff’s
initial choice of forum is always entitled to great deference.”
Cortez, 123 So. 3d at 1096.

     The Florida Supreme Court has expounded upon this
presumption, opining that “the plaintiff's right to choose the forum
is not just one factor to consider in the forum non conveniens
analysis, but is a strong presumption that can be overcome only
when the balance is tipped strongly in favor of the defendant.”
Id. at 1096 (citing Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508
(1947) (“[U]nless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant,
the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.”)).
Consequently, the strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff’s
forum choice “can be defeated only if the relative disadvantages to
the defendant’s private interests are of sufficient weight to
overcome the presumption. Id. at 1092 (quoting Kinney, 674 So. 2d
at 91). In performing the balancing test under Kinney, the fact that
the defendant is located in this country,” and especially in this
state, “is one indication that it would be less burdensome for the
defendants to defend suit in this country than it would be for [the
plaintiff] to litigate in a foreign country.” Id. at 1097. Accordingly,
both this Court and the Florida Supreme Court have observed that
“a forum non conveniens argument coming from a party sued
where [it] resides is both ‘puzzling’ and ‘strange.”
Id. (quoting Sanwa Bank, Ltd. v. Kato, 734 So. 2d 557, 561 (Fla.
5th DCA 1999)).

     When applying these principles, courts are required to engage
in a “meaningful analysis of the relevant, requisite Kinney factors”
before dismissing an action on forum non conveniens grounds.
Sports Channel Ltd. v. Tabib, 323 So. 3d 336, 337 (Fla. 3d DCA
2021) (citing Johnny’s Pool Super Ctr., Inc. v. Foreverpools
Caribbean, LLC, 307 So. 3d 832, 835 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)). In
evaluating these factors, it is important to note that the defendant,
as the movant, bears the burden of demonstrating the
inconvenience of Florida as a forum under the Kinney test. Abeid-
Saba, 184 So. 3d at 599 (“The defendant attempting to dismiss the
action on forum non conveniens grounds bears the burden of proof

                                  5
on each element of the Kinney analysis.” (quoting Telemundo
Network Grp., LLC v. Azteca Int’l Corp., 957 So. 2d 705, 709 (Fla.
3d DCA 2007))); see also Woods v. Nova Cos. Belize Ltd., 739 So. 2d
617, 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (“The defendant bears the burden of
persuasion as to each of the four Kinney steps.”). A trial court
generally cannot conduct a “meaningful analysis” under Kinney if
the defendant has not put forth any evidence or proof in support of
the motion to dismiss. See Ground Improvement Techs., Inc. v.
Merchs. Bonding Co., 707 So. 2d 1138, 1139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).
This Court has accordingly held that “any defendant seeking
dismissal of a suit based upon [r]ule 1.061 forum non conveniens
must support the motion by affidavit or other evidence offered
under oath.” Id. (further explaining that “[i]t is incumbent upon
the parties to submit affidavits or other evidence that will shed the
necessary light on the issue of the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and the interest of justice.”); see also Stamen v.
Arrillaga, 169 So. 3d 1209, 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (affirming
trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens
because the “motion [wa]s not sworn as true and [the defendant]
failed to file any affidavits in support of the facts asserted in the
motion”); Carenza v. Sun Int’l Hotels, Ltd., 699 So. 2d 830, 831
(Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (reversing trial court’s dismissal of action for
forum non conveniens where defendants “failed to provide any
sworn pleadings or affidavits in support of their motion”).
However, there is a singular, narrow exception to the defendant’s
requirement to support a motion to dismiss for forum non
conveniens with affidavits or sworn evidence, and that is in those
limited situations “where the complaint itself shows on its face
that a forum non conveniens transfer is warranted.” Id.

      In the instant case, Reiber argues the trial court erred when
it granted Yamasaki’s motion to dismiss his complaint for forum
non conveniens in the absence of any sworn affidavits or other
sworn evidence in support of the motion which would have shed
light on the factors to be considered under Kinney. In response,
Yamasaki, keying in on the singular and narrow exception
articulated by this Court in Ground Improvements, contends that
the face of Reiber’s complaint, coupled with his counsel’s admission
that a prior action had been filed in Belize, was sufficient to
support dismissal for forum non conveniens. We disagree with
Yamasaki both because Reiber’s complaint alone could not have

                                 6
supported dismissal for forum non conveniens and because it is
clear the trial court did not base its determination solely upon the
face of Reiber’s complaint.

     For example, the court made a finding under the second
Kinney factor that “access to evidence, relevant sites, and access to
witnesses are in Belize.” This finding could not have been based on
the allegations in the complaint. Reiber’s complaint was wholly
devoid of any allegations concerning the location of Yamasaki or
her cousin, the location(s) where he received medical treatment
and psychological treatment following the incident, and the
location(s) where he allegedly suffered financial losses to his
business as a result of the attack. In addition, the complaint was
wholly devoid of any sworn testimony or evidence regarding the
location(s) of the relevant witnesses. Though Yamasaki’s counsel
argued at the hearing that the relevant witnesses were in Belize,
and that Reiber presumably would have received medical care in
Belize, these speculative assertions could not have permissibly
formed the basis of the lower court’s ruling. Johnson v. Johnson,
288 So. 3d 745, 749 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (holding that “in the
absence of a stipulation, a trial court cannot make a factual
determination based on an attorney’s unsworn statements” and
that courts are “precluded from considering as fact unproven
statements documented only by an attorney” (quoting Blimpie
Cap. Venture, Inc. v. Palms Plaza Partners, Ltd., 636 So. 2d 838,
840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994))).

     Reiber separately contends the trial court erred when it failed
to accord any deference to his forum choice. We agree. The Florida
Supreme Court has emphasized that “the plaintiff’s right to choose
the forum is not just one factor to consider in the forum non
conveniens analysis, but is a strong presumption that can be
overcome only when the balance is tipped strongly in favor of the
defendant.” Cortez, 123 So. 3d at 1096. The trial court’s order
dismissing Reiber’s action for forum non conveniens indicates that
the court did not appropriately consider Reiber’s choice of forum in
applying the Kinney analysis; nor did it consider that Reiber was
a United States citizen seeking to bring suit in the United States
rather than a foreign country. Id. (“When a plaintiff is a citizen or
resident of the United States and the alternative forum is a foreign
country, the defendant’s burden to overcome this presumption is

                                 7
especially high.”). The order does not contain even a single
reference to Reiber’s choice of Florida as a forum, and particularly
does not appear to reflect that Reiber’s choice was afforded the
especially great weight required for a United States plaintiff under
Florida Supreme Court precedent.

     The trial court instead appeared to be predominantly
concerned with the fact that Reiber also filed an action in Belize,
as evidenced by the repeated references to the Belize filing within
the court’s Kinney analysis. Though the trial court may have
properly considered the Belize filing in employing the Kinney
analysis, it erred when it made the Belize filing its primary focus
under the analysis to the exclusion of considering Reiber’s actual
forum choice. This is additionally evidenced by the fact that the
trial court raised the concern that allowing both suits to proceed
would result in needless duplication of litigation, despite Reiber’s
counsel’s adamant representation at the hearing below that Reiber
was amenable to dismissing the Belize suit if the Florida suit
proceeded forward. 1

     Finally, we observe that the trial court’s order did not contain
any findings showing that it weighed Yamasaki’s own private
interests when employing the Kinney analysis. Had the trial court
performed a balancing test of Yamasaki’s private interests, both
the face of Reiber’s complaint and Yamasaki’s allegations in her
own motion indicated that Florida was the more convenient forum
for Yamasaki. See Cortez, 123 So. 3d at 1092 (stating that the
presumption in favor of the plaintiff’s forum choice “can be
defeated only if the relative disadvantages to the defendant's
private interests are of sufficient weight to overcome the
presumption”). First, Yamasaki resides in Florida, thus indicating
that it would be more convenient for her to litigate in Florida than
in Belize. As this court has aptly stated, “a forum non conveniens
argument coming from a party sued where [it] resides is both
‘puzzling’ and ‘strange.’ ” Cardoso v. FPB Bank, 879 So. 2d 1247,
1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (quoting Sanwa Bank, Ltd. v. Kato, 734

    1 Reiber’s counsel also indicated during oral argument that he

was prepared to dismiss the Belize action if the Florida action was
allowed to proceed.

                                 8
So. 2d 557, 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)). Further, Yamasaki conceded
in her motion to dismiss that Belize would be an inconvenient
forum for her. In particular, she pled:

    Litigation in the instant action will be unduly
    burdensome to [Yamasaki] because it subjects [her] to
    unnecessary travel expenses. Unlike [Reiber] who owns
    the condo located in Belize, [Yamasaki] has no lodging in
    Belize. . . . Balancing the private interests of the parties,
    the difficulties [Yamasaki] faces litigating in Belize are
    far greater than those [Reiber] faces litigating in Florida,
    and [Reiber] chose to litigate first in Belize and then in
    Florida.

Accordingly, based on the information available to the trial court,
both parties’ private interests indicated that Florida was a more
convenient forum—and at the very least, failed to support a
finding that Florida was an inconvenient forum in relation to
Belize. We therefore find that the trial court erred when it ruled
that Yamasaki had established the parties’ private interests,
including her own, weighed in favor of litigating in Belize.

                                III.

      Based on the foregoing, we hold that the trial court erred
when it dismissed Reiber’s complaint based on forum non
conveniens. The trial court did not conduct a meaningful Kinney
analysis because it was not presented with any sworn affidavits or
evidence. Thus, it could only have permissibly dismissed Reiber’s
action based on the four corners of the complaint. Rather than
confining its ruling to the four corners of the complaint, the trial
court impermissibly relied on the argument of counsel and
inferences drawn from the complaint in making the findings to
support its determination. We further hold that the trial court
erred when it failed to accord proper deference to Reiber’s forum
choice of Florida, and when it failed to consider Yamasaki’s own
admission that Florida was a more convenient forum for her than
Belize. As such, we reverse and remand for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.

    REVERSED AND REMANDED.

                                 9
SOUD, J., concurs.
LAMBERT, J., concurs with opinion.
                 _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

                              10
                                              Case No. 5D23-2000
                                      LT Case No. 2023-CA-010140

LAMBERT, J., concurring with opinion.

     I concur with the majority’s opinion reversing the trial court’s
order dismissing Reiber’s complaint based on forum non
conveniens. Yamasaki’s premise for moving to dismiss on this
basis, to me, bordered on the illogical. She sought relief from being
sued in her county of residence despite affirmatively representing,
in her own motion, that having to litigate in the country of Belize,
which would occur if she were successful in her motion, would be
“unduly burdensome” to her because it would subject her to
“unnecessary travel expenses.” Yamasaki then doubled down in
her motion with the additional observation that the “difficulties
[she] faces litigating in Belize are far greater than those [Reiber]
faces litigating in Florida.” 1

     Reiber was somewhat baffled by Yamasaki’s motion, but he
responded with a straightforward solution—he would promptly
dismiss the suit in Belize, and the entire matter could be litigated
in Brevard County. Despite this offer and, as correctly pointed out
in the majority opinion, Yamasaki having presented no sworn
evidence on which the trial court could base granting the motion,
the court dismissed the action.

     I write to briefly discuss the majority’s remand to the trial
court for further proceedings. To the extent the remand is to allow
additional analysis under Kinney, I see that as unnecessary. The
trial court’s order under review shows that it performed the four-
prong analysis required under Kinney; however, for the reasons
detailed by the majority, the trial court erred in its analysis. Nor
do I believe that Yamasaki should have the proverbial “second bite
at the apple” to fill in the evidentiary blanks.

    1 There is no indication in our record that, other than the

complaint having been filed, anything further has occurred in the
Belize litigation.

                                 11
    In my view, on remand, the trial court should vacate the forum
non conveniens dismissal order and enter an order that requires
Yamasaki to file a response to the complaint within a specified
time frame and also directs Reiber, within a time certain, to
dismiss the litigation in Belize, as he had previously offered to do
so and reiterated his willingness to do so at oral argument.

                                12