in the other jurisdiction.” Id. (quoting Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255 n. 22, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981)). Next, the court must analyze “how the parties’ -‘private interests’ will be affected'if the motion is granted or denied.” Id. at 91. The term “private interests” encompasses “four broad ‘practical’ concerns: adequate access to evidence and relevant sites, adequate access to witnesses, adequate enforcement of judgments, and the practicalities and expenses associated with the litigation.” Id. In conducting the private interest analysis; there is a strong presumption favoring the plaintiffs forum choice. Id. Third, a court should consider the “balance of public conveniences.” Id. at 91-92; see Cortez v. Palace Resorts, Inc., 123 So.3d 1085, 1093 (Fla.2013) (<HOLDING>). Under the third factor, courts may validly
holding that florida courts should always consider this third step of the forum non conveniens inquiry even if the private factors weigh more heavily in favor of the alternative forum and should require that the balance of public interests also be tipped in favor of the alternative forum in order to defeat the presumption favoring the plaintiffs forum choice holding that extreme delay in the alternative forum can render that forum inadequate holding that phone and facsimile communications to the forum purchase orders and payments sent to the forum a choice of law clause within the contract regarding the forum state and delivery of the product within the forum state were not enough to satisfy minimum contacts recognizing that where plaintiff is from the forum state and defendant is from an alternate forum each forum can claim a connection to one of the parties holding that a permissive forum selection clause containing a waiver of any claims of forum non conveniens amounts to a mandatory forum selection clause at least where the plaintiff chose the designated forum