Inversiones Mar Octava Limitada v. Banco Santander, S.A.

439 F. App'x 840

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: August 30, 2011
• Docket: 10-14012
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellants, plaintiffs before the district court, are a group of foreign investors that invested in two funds organized under the laws of the Bahamas. All of the appellants’ transactions were conducted with companies organized under the laws of foreign countries. The two Bahamian investment funds, however, invested their assets with Bernard L. Madoff. Madoff, of course, did not run a legitimate investment company but instead operated a ponzi scheme. When that scheme unravelled, the Bahamian funds went bankrupt, and the appellants’ investments were lost.

The procedural history of this case is set forth in detail in the district court’s thorough opinion. For our purposes, it is sufficient to say that the proceedings were eventually consolidated into a Multi-District Litigation, which was held in the Southern District of Florida. Following extensive briefing, the district court concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction over six defendants, and further that the entire case was due to be dismissed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Appellants appeal these determinations.

This Court “may only reverse a district court’s dismissal based on forum non conveniens if it constitutes a clear abuse of discretion.” Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., 578 F.3d 1283, 1288 (11th Cir.2009) (quoting Membreno v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 425 F.3d 932, 935-36 (11th Cir.2005)). It is well settled that abuse of discretion review is “extremely limited” and “highly deferential.” Id. When this Court employs the abuse of discretion standard, it “must affirm unless [it] find[s] that the district court has made a clear error of judgment, or has applied the wrong legal standard.” Id. (quoting United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1259 (11th Cir.2004) (en banc)).

Upon a thorough review of the briefs and the district court’s opinion, and with the benefit of oral argument, we hold that the appellants have not carried their heavy burden to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing on forum non conveniens grounds. Rather, the court committed no errors of judgment, clear or otherwise, nor did it apply the wrong legal standard. See Aldana, 578 F.3d at 1288. We thus share the district court’s conclusion “that Ireland is an adequate alternative forum and that the relevant private and public factors weigh strongly in favor of forum non conveniens dismissal in favor of Ireland,” and affirm. 1

AFFIRMED

1 . Because we may affirm on any ground supported in the record, we do not reach the district court's conclusions regarding personal jurisdiction. See Ironworkers Local Union 68 v. AstraZeneca Pharms., LP, 634 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir.2011).