Lambert v. Melia Hotels Int'l S.A.

• Decision Date: 15 March 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 20-21343-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN
• Citation: 526 F.Supp.3d 1207
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
• Parties: Laura LAMBERT, and Christopher Lambert, Plaintiffs, v. MELIA HOTELS INTERNATIONAL S.A., and the Sol Group Corporation, Defendants.

526 F.Supp.3d 1207

Laura LAMBERT, and Christopher Lambert, Plaintiffs,

v.MELIA HOTELS INTERNATIONAL S.A., and the Sol Group Corporation, Defendants.

Case No. 20-21343-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

Signed March 15, 2021

Ashley Lauren Gomez-Rodon, Joshua Ross Goodman, Cozen O'Connor, Miami, FL, Christopher C. Fallon, Jr., Pro Hac Vice, Cozen O'Connor, West Conshohocken, PA, for Plaintiffs.

Bruce Richard Marx, Marlow Adler Abrams Newman & Lewis, Coral Gables, FL, for Defendants.

OMNIBUS ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MELIA HOTELS INTERNATIONAL S.A.'S AND THE SOL GROUP CORPORATION'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS

MARCIA G. COOKE, United States District Judge

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendant The Sol Group Corporation's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to the Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine (ECF No. 10) and Defendant Melia Hotels International S.A.’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction¹ and Forum Non Conveniens (ECF No. 19) (collectively referred to herein as the "Motions"). Plaintiffs Laura Lambert and Christopher Lambert ("Plaintiffs") filed their oppositions to the Motions on June 5, 2020 and November 16, 2020 respectively. ECF No. 14. Thereafter, Defendants filed their reply briefs in support of the Motions on June 12, 2020 and November 30, 2020. ECF Nos. 15 and 23. Plaintiff filed a Court-authorized surreply to Defendant Melia Hotels International S.A.’s reply in support of its Motion to Dismiss on December 18, 2020. ECF No. 26. Not to be outdone, Defendant Melia Hotels International S.A. filed a Court-authorized sur-surreply in support of its Motion on December 30, 2020. ECF No. 29. Thus, the Motions are both fully briefed and ripe for adjudication. For purposes of efficiency and judicial economy, the Court shall resolve both Motions through this Omnibus Order.

BACKGROUND

This is a simple "slip and fall" case with the slight nuance being that the alleged fall occurred in The Bahamas. More specifically, Plaintiffs allege that on January 31, 2020, Plaintiff Laura Lambert was lawfully on the premises known as Melia Nassau Beach, an all-inclusive resort (the "Resort") located at 4914 West Bay Street, Nassau, Bahamas, as a business invitee. ECF No. 1, Compl. ¶ 12. As Plaintiff Laura Lambert was descending the staircase leading to the Aqua Restaurant at the Resort she slipped and fell down the stairs. Id. ¶ 13. Based upon these allegations, the Complaint asserts two counts against both Defendants Melia Hotels International, S.A. (hereinafter "Melia Hotels" or "Defendant Melia Hotels International S.A.") and The Sol Group Corporation (hereinafter "Defendant Sol Group"). Plaintiff Laura Lambert alleges a claim for negligence and Plaintiff Christopher Lambert alleges a derivative loss of consortium claim. Id. ¶¶ 9-25.

In their Motions, Defendants seek dismissal of this action under the theory that Plaintiffs should litigate this case in The Bahamas – the location of the alleged fall.

LEGAL STANDARD

"Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a district court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction when a foreign forum is better suited to adjudicate the dispute." Fresh Results, LLC v. ASF Holland, B.V. , 921 F.3d 1043, 1048–49 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing Kolawole v. Sellers , 863 F.3d 1361, 1369 (11th Cir. 2017)). "The ‘central purpose’ of forum non conveniens is ‘to ensure that the trial is convenient.’ " Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Eleventh Circuit has cautioned, however, that "[t]he doctrine should not be invoked ‘lightly ... because it effectively deprives the plaintiff of his favored forum[.]’ " Id. (citing Sellers , 863 F.3d at 1369 ). As such, "a defendant bears the burden of justifying dismissal based on forum non conveniens." Id. (citing La Seguridad v. Transytur Line , 707 F.2d 1304, 1309 (11th Cir. 1983) ). To satisfy this burden, the defendant must establish that: "(1) an adequate alternative forum is available, (2) the public and private factors weigh in favor of dismissal, and (3) the plaintiff can reinstate his suit in the alternative forum without undue inconvenience or prejudice." Id. (citing Tazoe v. Airbus S.A.S. , 631 F.3d 1321, 1330 (11th Cir. 2011)) (quoting Leon v. Millon Air, Inc. , 251 F.3d 1305, 1310–11 (11th Cir. 2001) ).

"When ruling on a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, a court may ‘consider matters outside the pleadings if presented in proper form by the parties.’ " Turner v. Costa Crociere S.P.A. , 1:20-CV-21481-KMM, 488 F.Supp.3d 1240, 1245 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 10, 2020) (citing MGC Commc'ns, Inc. v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc. , 146 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1349 (S.D. Fla. 2001)). Furthermore, "a court must accept the facts in the plaintiff's complaint as true, ‘to the extent they are uncontroverted by the defendants’ affidavits.’ " Id. (citing S & Davis Int'l, Inc. v. Republic of Yemen , 218 F.3d 1292, 1303 (11th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted)). "When affidavits conflict, the court is inclined to give greater weight to the plaintiff's version of the ... facts and to construe such facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Id. (citing Home Ins. Co. v. Thomas Indus., Inc. , 896 F.2d 1352, 1355 (11th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted)).

I. The Bahamas Is an Adequate and Available Forum

The first factor the Court must consider in its forum non convienens analysis is whether The Bahamas is an adequate and available forum. These are two separate inquiries. See St. Aubin v. Island Hotel Co. Ltd. , 1:16-CV-22023, 2017 WL 998298, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 15, 2017) ("The Eleventh Circuit has held that this factor involves two inquiries because ‘[a]vailability and adequacy warrant separate consideration.’ ") (quoting Tazoe , 631 F.3d at 1330 (internal citations omitted)).

A. The Bahamas Is An Available Forum

"An alternative forum is ‘available’ to the plaintiff when the foreign court can assert jurisdiction over the litigation sought to be transferred." Tazoe , 631 F.3d at 1330. " ‘Ordinarily, [the requirement of an available forum] will be satisfied when the defendant is ‘amenable to process’ in the other jurisdiction.’ " Id. (citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno , 454 U.S. 235, 254 at n.22, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981)) (quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert , 330 U.S. 501, 506-07, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947) ).

Here, Plaintiffs contend that the Court must defer to their choice of forum because they are U.S. citizens and Defendants are not Bahamian corporations. See ECF No. 14, at 4 and ECF No. 20, at 11. Plaintiffs concede that "[t]he availability of compulsory process may weigh against Plaintiffs’ choice" but argue that "there are few if any witnesses who would be outside of the parties’ control. Additionally, with Plaintiffs’ choice of forum, Plaintiffs need not worry about an unenforceable judgment in a foreign forum." Id. Meanwhile, both Defendants have stipulated that as a condition of dismissal they would: a) appear in any such Bahamian Court of law; b) receive service of process from a Bahamian court by personal service and/or registered mail; c) waive any and all defenses pertaining to any applicable statutes of limitation, jurisdiction, and venue that they may have in a Bahamian court; d) make relevant witnesses and documents in their control available to a Bahamian Court; and e) respect any final judgment entered against them by a Bahamian Court. ECF Nos. 10-1 at ¶ 15 and 19-1 at ¶ 25.

The Court finds Defendants’ above stipulations ensure the availability of The Bahamas as an alternative forum. See Tazoe , 631 F.3d at 1330 ("The manufacturers have stipulated that they will make themselves amenable to process in Brazil as a condition of dismissal. Specifically, the manufacturers have stipulated that they will consent to service of process in Brazil; toll any applicable Brazilian statutes of limitation; make relevant witnesses and documents available to a Brazilian civil court; and respect the final judgment of a Brazilian court. These stipulations ensure the availability of Brazil as an alternative forum.").

B. The Bahamas Is An Adequate Alternative Forum

The next inquiry is the adequacy of The Bahamas as an alternative forum. "An alternative forum is inadequate ‘if the remedy provided by th[at] alternative forum is so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory that it is no remedy at all.’ " Id. at 1330-31 (quoting Piper Aircraft , 454 U.S. at 254, 102 S.Ct. 252 ). Plaintiffs contend that The Bahamas is not an adequate alternative forum. More specifically, Plaintiffs argue:

The Bahamas is not an available and adequate forum for Plaintiffs’ action because Plaintiffs cannot reinstitute suit without undue inconvenience and prejudice. Defendant's own expert explained how Bahamian courts expect plaintiffs to post a bond as security for the defendant's costs of the proceedings. (D.E. 10-2, ¶ 18). This requirement would place undue inconvenience and expense upon the Plaintiffs and effectively leave them without a remedy. Additionally, Plaintiffs would likely be unable to find counsel in the Bahamas to handle this case on a contingency fee basis ... Even if Plaintiffs could post a bond as security and find counsel on a contingency fee basis, doing so adds unnecessary costs to the Plaintiffs. This would cause unnecessary prejudice in a case where both Plaintiffs and [Defendants] are U.S. parties with access to U.S. courts.

ECF No. 20 at 16. Plaintiffs’ arguments are unavailing. The Bahamian legal system: (1) is similar to the English system; (2) allows access to evidence, witnesses, and relevant sites; (3) permits actions based on negligence and damages in personal injury cases; and (4) supports enforcement of judgments. St. Aubin , 2017 WL 998298, at *3 (citing Morse v. Sun Int'l Hotels Ltd. , 2001 WL 34874967, at *2 (S.D. Fla. 2001)) (finding that the Bahamas is an adequate alternative forum for plaintiff suing for personal injuries sustained at the Atlantis). Moreover, "[t]he mere fact that the alternative...