# Tananta v. Cruise Ships Catering & Services Int'l., N.V.

> District Court of Appeal of Florida · December 22, 2004 · 909 So. 2d 874

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7777538

## Case

- **Full name:** Oriel TANANTA, Appellants/Appellees v. CRUISE SHIPS CATERING AND SERVICES INT'L., N.V., Appellees/Appellants Rene E. Chamo, Appellant/Petitioner v. Costa Crociere, S.p.A., etc., Appellees/Respondents Fernando Simpson, Appellant/Petitioner v. Costa Crociere, S.p.A., etc., Appellees/Respondents
- **Court:** District Court of Appeal of Florida
- **Decided:** December 22, 2004
- **Citations:** 909 So. 2d 874; 2005 A.M.C. 449; 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 19661
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Schwartz
- **Judges:** Cope, Fletcher, Gersten, Goderich, Green, Levy, Ramirez, Schwartz, Shepherd, Wells
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7777538

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding *964 that the location of a corporate marketing arm in Florida was of no consequence in analyzing forum non convenience where it had nothing to do with the tort in the foreign forum
- finding that the location of a corporate marketing arm in Florida was of no consequence in analyzing forum non convenience where it had nothing to do with the tort in the foreign forum
- noting that Florida has very little interest in making whole foreign nationals injured in the Mediterranean Sea while aboard non-U.S. vessels and treated by foreign doctors
- noting court’s consideration of whether an adequate available forum exists is a prerequisite to its determination on a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens

## Opinion text

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge
(specially concurring).
I concur in the result and virtually all of the majority opinion. With respect to part IV, however, I think it sufficient to make it clear that, although Henry v. Windjammer Barefoot Cruises, 851 So.2d 731 (Fla. 8d DCA 2003) formally adopts Fantome, S.A. v. Frederick, 2003 WL 23009844 (11th Cir. January 24, 2003), the reasoning and outcome are also entirely correct under Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 674 So.2d 86 (Fla.1996). To my mind, while it is technically more accurate to specify, as in Guerra v. Selsdon Maritime Corp., 711 So.2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), review denied, 728 So.2d 202 (Fla.1998), that Florida rather than federal law applies, it is not necessary to belabor the issue because the applicable standards are indistinguishable. That this is the case is shown on the one hand, by our decision in Henry , which follows Fantome, and, on the other, by the now-numerous federal decisions which reach the same result we do here. See Bautista v. Cruise Ships Catering & Serv. Int’l, N.V., No. 04-10335, 120 F.Appx. 786 - (11th Cir. September 16, 2004), aff'g Bautista v. Cruise Ship Catering & Serv. Int’l, N.V., No. 03-6016-CV-WPD (S.D.Fla. November 13, 2003); Estrada v. Cruise Ships Catering & Serv. Int’l, N.V., No. 03-60032 (November 30, 2004); Rey v. Cruise Ships Catering & Servs. Int’l, N.V., No. 03-60157 (November 24, 2004); Membreno v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 347 F.Supp.2d 1289 (S.D.Fla.2004); Hernandez v. Cruise Ships Catering & Servs. Int’l, No. 03-20302 (S.D.Fla. December 8, 2003); Melbourne v. Auguar Montilla Int’l, Inc., No. 03-6220-CIV (October 5, 2004). But cf. Williams v. Cruise Ships Catering & Serv. Int’l, N.V., 320 F.Supp.2d 1347 (S.D.Fla.2004).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7777538. Public record. Not legal advice.