LACAILE v. LESUR (2021)

We affirm without extended discussion the trial court's order denying the appellants’ motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. The trial court's well-reasoned discussion of the private and public interest factors compels affirmance. In affirming, however, we expressly disapprove those portions of the order finding that Michigan is not an adequate alternative forum.

“[A]n alternative forum does not have to be equivalent to the chosen forum to be adequate.” Cortez v. Palace Resorts, Inc., 123 So. 3d 1085, 1092 (Fla. 2013). Instead, dismissal is inappropriate “where the alternative forum does not permit litigation of the subject matter of the dispute.” Kinney Sys., Inc. v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 86, 90 (Fla. 1996).

While Michigan does not have a specific equivalent statute for judicial expulsion of a member from a limited liability company, there is nothing in section 605.0602, Florida Statutes, that would prevent another jurisdiction from enforcing its provisions. We have no doubt that our respected counterparts in Michigan are equally capable of interpreting and applying Florida law. See, e.g., Zantop Int'l Airlines, Inc. v. Eastern Airlines, 200 Mich.App. 344, 503 N.W. 2d 915, 919–22 (1993) (applying Florida indemnification law); Klingman Furniture Co. v. Leslie E. Tassell Tr., No. 282727, 2009 WL 350871 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (applying Florida statute in case involving Florida estate).

Affirmed.

LOGUE, J.