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

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUGUST 30, 2011
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 10-14012
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cv-20215-PCH
INVERSIONES MAR OCTAVA LIMITADA,
MARCELO GUILLERMO TESTA,
On Behalf of Themselves and
All Others Similarly Situated,
SANTANDER INVESTOR GROUP,
LEAD PLAINTIFFS,
JUAN GONZALO PEREZ VALDEZ,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs-Appellants,
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER LIMITED,
SAN JAVIER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lIntervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
BANCO SANTANDER S.A.,
BANCO SANTANDER INTERNATIONAL,
OPTIMAL INVESTMENT SERVICES S.A.,
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS,
HSBC SECURITIES SERVICES (IRELAND) LTD., et al.,
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lDefendants-Appellees.

-- 1 of 4 --

________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 30, 2011)
Before TJOFLAT and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and DAWSON, District Judge.*
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
Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of*
Arkansas, sitting by designation.
2

-- 2 of 4 --

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
3

-- 3 of 4 --

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
Because we may affirm on any ground supported in the record, we do not reach the1
district court’s conclusions regarding personal jurisdiction. See Ironworkers Local Union 68 v.
AstraZeneca Pharms., LP, 634 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir. 2011).
4

-- 4 of 4 --