doctrine considers only business activities in Florida that are related to the incidents that gave rise to the plaintiffs lawsuit. In Cortez v. Palace Holdings, S.A., 66 So.3d 959 (Fla.Ct.App.2011), for example, even though the defendants had corporate headquarters located in Florida, none of those corporate divisions were involved in the tortious conduct and therefore the case was dismissed on Florida’s rule of forum non conveniens. See Cortez, 66 So.3d at 963-964. Likewise, in Tananta, the location of the corporate defendant’s marketing arm in Florida was “inconsequential” because these marketing operations “had nothing whatsoever to do with” the injury that the plaintiff suffered. See 909 So.2d at 886; see also Calvo v. Sol Melia, S.A., 761 So.2d 461, 464 (Fla.Ct.App.2000) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). In contrast, under Rhoditis,
holding that issue concerning forum non conveniens decision was not suitable for interlocutory appeal in part because a forum non conveniens decision is inherently factsensitive holding that the presence in florida of corporate subsidiaries whose conduct is unrelated to the claim is not relevant for floridas forum non conveniens analysis holding that a court can dismiss a case under forum non conveniens before resolving any other jurisdictional issues holding that a district court may dismiss based on forum non conveniens without first addressing personal jurisdiction holding that the jones act does not preempt state law in applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens and thus state law governs