v. Prestige Cruises, N.V., 898 So.2d 271, 272 (Fla.Ct.App.2005) (affirming dismissal based on forum non conveniens without consideration of federal maritime choice-of-law standards); Tananta v. Cruise Ships Catering & Servs. Int'l, N.V., 909 So.2d 874, 881-84 (Fla.Ct.App.2004) (en banc) (contrasting federal maritime choice-of-law analysis with Florida’s forum non conveniens doctrine). Although both Florida and the federal “base of operations” test under Rhoditis consider the extent of the defendant’s business operations, Florida’s forum non usiness activities in the United States can satisfy the “base of operations” requirement regardless of whether the particular activities in question were related to the plaintiffs injury. See, e.g., Rhoditis, 398 U.S. at 307-08, 90 S.Ct. 1731 (<HOLDING>); Szumlicz, 698 F.2d at 1195 (hold ing “base of
holding that the us attorneys office is the alter ego of the united states exercising its sovereign power of prosecution holding that new york convention governed award rendered in the united states that arose out of dispute involving two nondomestic parties and one united states corporation holding that the fourteenth amendment which makes persons bom in the united states and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the united states and requires that representatives be apportioned among the states based on population excluding indians not taxed did not make an indian a citizen of the united states holding base of operations requirement fulfilled where defendant kept its largest office in new york was 95 owned by a us domiciliary who had lived in the united states for twentyfive years and derived its entire income from shipping cargo to or from the united states holding the act inapplicable to the united states in its role as employer