States and other nations and other such interests.” Aldana, 2007 WL 3054986 at *5. The district court, however, did not explain how Plaintiffs’ choice of forum — in a federal court of their country of residence— constitutes forum shopping or threatens international comity. Indeed, it is perfectly reasonable for Plaintiffs to have brought this lawsuit in the court of the country of them residence, particularly because United States’ law governs their claims and one of the Defendants, Del Monte, is incorporated and located in the United States. Also, because there is no pending suit or prior judgment in Guatemalan court, it is not obvious why there should be any threat to international comity in allowing Plaintiffs to file their civil suit in this country. See Ford, 319 F.3d at 1309 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the district court gave an
holding that a reviewing court has the power to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial court where the findings are not supported by the evidence holding that where there is no public international issue raised a foreign government is not involved in the litigation and the litigation involves private parties concerning disputes arising out of a contract not only would an antisuit injunction not have an intolerable impact on comity but allowing foreign suits to proceed in such circumstances would seriously harm international comity holding district court may treat bankruptcy courts findings and conclusions as proposed holding that comity concerns are implicated where plaintiffs ask the district court to contradict the conclusions of the hong kong courts and to overlook the respect that a foreign sovereign is due holding the supreme court was without jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the courts finding of facts conclusions of law and ruling until the court entered the decree that was contemplated by the finding of facts conclusions of law and ruling