Establishing the Reduced Presumption and Burden of Proof in Forum Non Conveniens Dismissals Involving Foreign Plaintiffs

Introduction

This commentary examines the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in JTC Skywave Investments Ltd. v. Andrew N. Mart, No. 24-12237 (11th Cir. Apr. 22, 2025). The dispute arose when foreign investors—JTC Skywave Investments Ltd., a British Virgin Islands corporation, and Harald McPike, its ultimate beneficial owner—sued U.S. and offshore defendants for alleged fraud, fraudulent inducement, and civil conspiracy. Plaintiffs claimed they were induced to invest over $14 million in Luminastra Ltd., a Nevis-based entity controlled by defendant Andrew Mart and managed by Deanna Boies, only to find their funds diverted into U.S. entities. After removal to federal court in Florida, defendants moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, arguing that the Bahamas or Nevis provided a more appropriate forum. The district court granted the motion, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The court held that:

Alternative forums (the Bahamas and Nevis) were both adequate and available;
Private-interest factors—access to witnesses and proof located offshore—weighed heavily in favor of dismissal because defendants identified 23 non-U.S. witnesses essential to the fraud and conspiracy claims;
Public-interest factors—local interest in adjudicating a dispute involving Bahamian and Nevis citizens and a contract governed by St. Kitts and Nevis law—weighed in favor of non-U.S. fora;
Plaintiffs’ arguments about U.S. witnesses and U.S. use of funds did not overcome the deference owed to the district court’s reasonable balancing.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court’s reasoning incorporates a robust line of forum non conveniens jurisprudence:

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981): Articulates the three-step test and deference owed to district courts on dismissal.
Otto Candies, LLC v. Citigroup, Inc., 963 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2020): Recognizes a weaker presumption in favor of a foreign plaintiff’s forum choice and outlines how defendants may meet their burden via broad witness descriptions.
Fresh Results, LLC v. ASF Holland, B.V., 921 F.3d 1043 (11th Cir. 2019): Restates that forum non conveniens is appropriate when a foreign forum is better suited.
Tazoe v. Airbus S.A.S., 631 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2011): Emphasizes consideration of both parties’ theories and deference to district court balancing.
SME Racks, Inc. v. Sistemas Mecanicos Para Electronica, S.A., 382 F.3d 1097 (11th Cir. 2004): Affirms that public-interest factors include a sovereign’s interest in deciding disputes affecting its citizens.
Leon v. Millon Air, Inc., 251 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2001): Establishes that defendants carry the burden of persuasion on all elements of a forum non conveniens motion.
Cooper v. Meridian Yachts, Ltd., 575 F.3d 1151 (11th Cir. 2009): Holds that broad choice-of-law clauses can extend to related tort claims.
Ford v. Brown, 319 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2003): Instructs courts to tie private-interest analysis to necessary proof for each element of a plaintiff’s claims.

Legal Reasoning

The Eleventh Circuit’s per curiam opinion applied the three-step forum non conveniens framework:

Adequate Alternative Forum: Not contested on appeal—both the Bahamas and Nevis permit plaintiffs to bring identical claims without undue prejudice.
Private-Interest Factors:
- Key category: access to evidence and compulsory process.
- Defendants submitted affidavits identifying 23 non-U.S. witnesses (13 in the Bahamas; 10 in Nevis) with direct knowledge of the Call Option Agreement, the underlying negotiations, fund transfers, and subsidiary structures.
- Plaintiffs offered only a handful of U.S.-based witnesses and generalized assertions of convenience for them—insufficient to rebut a defendant’s showing under Otto Candies.
- The district court’s conclusion that “private interests weigh heavily in favor of dismissal” was reasonable and merits deference under Piper Aircraft.
Public-Interest Factors:
- Strong interests of the Bahamas and Nevis in adjudicating claims by their citizens for wrongs allegedly committed on their soil.
- Governing law is St. Kitts and Nevis law by express choice-of-law clause covering “all matters arising out of or relating to” the Call Option Agreement.
- Less weight given to U.S. connections (post-contract fund use; Boies’s signature in Illinois) because the alleged wrongdoing (fraudulent inducement and diversion) occurred abroad.

Having reviewed these factors, the Eleventh Circuit found no abuse of discretion.

Impact

This decision reinforces several important guideposts for litigants in cross-border disputes:

Foreign plaintiffs enjoy only a diminished presumption in favor of their chosen U.S. forum.
Defendants need not identify every witness by name—broad categories and anticipated testimony are sufficient to meet the forum non conveniens burden.
Courts will give substantial deference to a district court’s reasoned balancing of private and public interests, especially where non-U.S. witnesses and foreign-law issues predominate.
Choice-of-law clauses extending to “all matters” may pull related torts into the governing foreign law, strengthening the public-interest case for dismissal.

Future plaintiffs should anticipate more ready dismissal of international fraud and contract claims when offshore witnesses, documents, and governing law lie outside the United States.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Forum Non Conveniens: A discretionary doctrine allowing U.S. courts to dismiss cases when a more appropriate foreign forum exists.
Private-Interest Factors: Considerations of parties’ convenience, such as location of witnesses, documents, costs, and enforceability of judgments.
Public-Interest Factors: Sovereign interests in having local controversies decided at home, applying local law, and avoiding congesting foreign courts.
Presumption in Forum Choice: Domestic plaintiffs enjoy a strong presumption that their chosen forum is proper; foreign plaintiffs have a weaker presumption.
Compulsory Process: A court’s power to compel witness testimony or document production (e.g., subpoenas); absence of compulsory process abroad weighs in favor of dismissal.
Choice-of-Law Clause: Contract provision specifying which jurisdiction’s law governs disputes “related to” the agreement; may extend to tort claims arising from the contract.

Conclusion

Key Takeaways: The Eleventh Circuit’s ruling in JTC Skywave crystallizes the rule that foreign plaintiffs’ access to U.S. courts is circumscribed by a diminished presumption and a relatively light burden on defendants to secure dismissal under forum non conveniens. By demonstrating the preponderance of offshore witnesses, documents, and a foreign-law contract, defendants secured dismissal despite some U.S. contacts. This decision underscores the importance of early forum analysis in transnational litigation and the potent effect of choice-of-law clauses in shaping venue disputes.