public interest factors in Florida

2017“The public interest inquiry focuses on whether the litigation has a general nexus with the chosen forum ‘sufficient to justify the forum’s commitment of judicial time and resources to it.’” Id. at 281 (quoting Cortez v. Palace Resorts, Inc., 123 So.3d 1085, 1093 (Fla. 2013)).

2016Cortez, 123 So.3d at 1091 (quoting Kinney, 674 So.2d at 90 ), In Cortez , the Florida Supreme Court modified Kinney's third prong — the public interest prong — and required Florida courts to consider the public interest factors irrespective of whether the private interest factors are “in, or near equipoise.” See Cortez, 123 So.3d at 1093 (holding that “public interest factors should always be considered as part of [a forum non conveniens ] analysis”) (adopting the approach taken by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in SME Racks, Inc. v. Sistemas Mecanicos Para Electro

2025Co., 674 So. 2d 86, 92 (Fla. 1996) (“[I]f the public interest factors themselves are at or near equipoise, then the third step of the inquiry will provide no basis for defeating the presumption favoring plaintiff’s choice of forum.”); Ward v. Kerzner Int’l Hotels Ltd., 2005 WL 2456191 , at *5 (S.D.

2016The public interest factors focus on “whether the case has a general nexus with the forum.” Id. at 1093 (quoting Kinney, 674 So.2d at 91 ).

2015See Cortez, 123 So.3d at 1093 (holding that the public interest factors should be addressed, when the private interest factors weigh in favor of dismissal); Rolls-Royce, Inc. v. Garcia, 77 So.3d 855 , 861 n. 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (noting that the public interest inquiry in Kinney. “ ‘comes into play only if, in weighing the opposing parties’ private interest factors, the trial court finds them to be at or near equipoise-’ ” (quoting Kinney, 674 So.2d at 91 )).

2015See Cortez, 123 So.3d at 1093 (holding that the public interest factors should be addressed, when the private interest factors weigh in favor of dismissal); Rolls-Royce, Inc. v. Garcia, 77 So.3d 855 , 861 n. 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (noting that the public interest inquiry in Kinney. “ ‘comes into play only if, in weighing the opposing parties’ private interest factors, the trial court finds them to be at or near equipoise-’ ” (quoting Kinney, 674 So.2d at 91 )).

2015The public interest inquiry also acknowledges that a court “may legitimately encourage trial of controversies in the localities in which they arise,” and “a court may validly consider its familiarity with- governing law when deciding whether or not to retain jurisdiction over a case.” Kinney, 674 So.2d at 92 (quoting Pain, 637 F.2d at 791-92 ).

2015The public interest inquiry also acknowledges that a court “may legitimately encourage trial of controversies in the localities in which they arise,” and “a court may validly consider its familiarity with governing law when deciding whether or not to retain jurisdiction over a case.” Kinney, 674 So. 2d at 92 (quoting Pain, 637 F. 2d at 15 791-92).

1992Again, in State v. Cain, 381 So.2d 1361, 1367-68 (Fla.1980), the court rejected the argument that the delegation of authority to a prosecutor to decide whether to try a juvenile as an adult in light of a public interest standard was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.

1992Again, in State v. Cain, 381 So.2d 1361, 1367-68 (Fla. 1980), the court rejected the argument that the delegation of authority to a prosecutor to decide whether to try a juvenile as an adult in light of a public interest standard was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.

2017“The public interest inquiry focuses on whether the litigation has a general nexus with the chosen forum ‘sufficient to justify the forum’s commitment of judicial time and resources to it.’” Id. at 281 (quoting Cortez v. Palace Resorts, Inc., 123 So.3d 1085, 1093 (Fla. 2013)).

2017See Rolls-Royce, Inc. v. Garcia, 77 So. 3d 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). 11 176 So. 3d at 281 (quoting Cortez v. Palace Resorts, Inc., 123 So. 3d 1085, 1093 (Fla. 2013)).

2025Fla. Mar. 30, 2005) (“[T]he Bahamas’ interest is somewhat lessened where the sole plaintiff is an American citizen.”); Tune v. Philip Morris, Inc., 766 So. 2d 350, 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (“A false conflict can exist under at least three different circumstances.

2019See Sierra Club v. Brown , 243 So. 3d 903 (Fla. 2018). *929 We affirmed the settlement order in Sierra Club , concluding that the Commission applied the appropriate public interest standard in its consideration of the settlement agreement and that the Commission's decision to approve the settlement agreement was supported by competent, substantial evidence.

2019The public interest standard considers "whether the agreement-as a whole-resolved all the issues, 'established rates that were just, reasonable, and fair, and ... is in the public interest.' " Id. (quoting Citizens v. Fla. Pub.

2018Coop., Inc. v. Johnson , 727 So.2d 259 , 264 (Fla. 1999) ("[I]n the final analysis, the public interest is the ultimate measuring stick to guide the PSC in its decisions."); AmeriSteel Corp. v. Clark , 691 So.2d 473 , 478 (Fla. 1997) ("[T]he Commission's charge in proceedings concerning territorial [settlement] agreements is to approve those" that are not against the public interest, among other factors.); Utilities Comm'n of City of New Smyrna Beach v. Fla. Pub.

2016Cortez, 123 So.3d at 1091 (quoting Kinney, 674 So.2d at 90 ), In Cortez , the Florida Supreme Court modified Kinney's third prong — the public interest prong — and required Florida courts to consider the public interest factors irrespective of whether the private interest factors are “in, or near equipoise.” See Cortez, 123 So.3d at 1093 (holding that “public interest factors should always be considered as part of [a forum non conveniens ] analysis”) (adopting the approach taken by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in SME Racks, Inc. v. Sistemas Mecanicos Para Electro

2016See also Leon, 251 F.3d at 1311 (stating “even though the private factors are ‘generally considered more important’ than the public'factors, the better rule is to consider both factors in all cases”).

2016The hallmark of a forum non conveniens inquiry is convenience; therefore, “controlling weight cannot be given to any one factor in the balancing process or the doctrine would lose much of the flexibility that is its essence.” La Seguridad v. Transytur Line, 707 F.2d 1304, 1307 (11th Cir.1983).

2016The fact that the court did not discuss the public interest factors in the dismissal order does not compel reversal because, as the Fourth District has explained, “[tjhere is no per se rule requiring a remand whenever an order granting or denying dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds fails to explicitly set forth the court’s resolution of the four-step analysis [if] the record is sufficient to review the trial court’s ultimate determination.” Smith Barney, Inc. v. Potter, 725 So.2d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

2016The fact that the court did not discuss the public interest factors in the dismissal order does not compel reversal because, as the Fourth District has explained, “[tjhere is no per se rule requiring a remand whenever an order granting or denying dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds fails to explicitly set forth the court’s resolution of the four-step analysis [if] the record is sufficient to review the trial court’s ultimate determination.” Smith Barney, Inc. v. Potter, 725 So.2d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

2013Chesterton Co., 946 A.2d 1171, 1185 (R.I.2008) (emphasis added) (quoting Piper, 454 U.S. at 257 , 102 S.Ct. 252 ).

2011Kawasaki Motors Corp. v. Foster, 899 So.2d 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (holding that the public interest will be served by transferring jurisdiction to either the state where the plaintiff resides, which has a greater interest in protecting its vacationing residents, or to the foreign forum that has a significant interest in punishing a wrongdoer within its jurisdiction and ensuring the safety of those who visit its resorts); Ciba-Geigy, Ltd., 691 So.2d at 1124 (finding that courts can protect their dockets from cases over which they may be able to assert jurisdiction but which lack significant con

2011Kawasaki Motors Corp. v. Foster, 899 So.2d 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (holding that the public interest will be served by transferring jurisdiction to either the state where the plaintiff resides, which has a greater interest in protecting its vacationing residents, or to the foreign forum that has a significant interest in punishing a wrongdoer within its jurisdiction and ensuring the safety of those who visit its resorts); Ciba-Geigy, Ltd., 691 So.2d at 1124 (finding that courts can protect their dockets from cases over which they may be able to assert jurisdiction but which lack significant con

2001See Goeden v. CM III, Inc., 756 So.2d 1105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Banfield, 589 So.2d at 441 .

1996See Friends for All Children, 717 F.2d at 610 .