Magdalena v. Toyota — A Missed Opportunity to Deter Purely Foreign Litigation in Florida?

The Third District Court of Appeal issued an opinion addressing an issue of importance to many Florida litigators with international aspects to their practice: Florida litigants' entitlement to costs after a case is dismissed for forum non conveniens.

In Magdalena v. Toyota, the Third District reversed an award of costs issued to Toyota after the case was dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens. The plaintiffs, who were citizens of Panama, had brought a products liability action in Miami-Dade Circuit Court against the Japanese auto manufacturer arising from injuries suffered in a car accident in Panama. The trial court held that a consideration of the relevant factors “strongly favors dismissal” under the forum non conveniens analysis because the car accident at issue occurred in Panama, and involved Panamanian residents driving a vehicle that could not legally be sold in the United States. Further, the trial court found that Florida was only minimally connected to the controversy: the plaintiffs received medical treatment in Miami for their injuries; the plaintiffs attorneys were located in Miami; the plaintiffs possessed property in Miami; and the defendants had registered agents in Broward County.

“These contacts,” the trial court held, “are not significant enough to warrant investment of Florida's limited judicial and juror resources, especially when the Eleventh Judicial Circuit has a very crowded docket, and this case may involve the application of foreign law.” Based on that finding and others, the trial court dismissed the suit as improperly brought in Florida and, significantly for present purposes, awarded costs to Toyota as the “prevailing party” under Florida statute Section 57.041.