legal rights between domestic and foreign claimants should no longer be a factor justifying the separate classification of such claims. In any event, most, if not all, of the foreign claims would likely be subject to forum non conveniens dismissal. See, e.g., Ashley, 887 F.Supp. 1469 (granting Dow Coming’s forum non conveniens motion as to 151,194 Australian, Canadian and British breast-implant plaintiffs). See also Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. 235, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (discussing factors to be considered when deciding forum non con-veniens motion); Gschtvind v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 161 F.3d 602 (10th Cir.1998); Torres v. Southern Peru Copper Corp., 113 F.3d 540 (5th Cir.1997); Magnin v. Tele-dyne Continental Motors 91 F.3d 1424 (11th Cir.1996); but see Bhatnagar, 52 F.3d 1220 (<HOLDING>). Thus far, the only foreign breast-implant
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 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 mexico to be available and adequate forum after rejecting arguments that forum was inadequate due to restrictions on discovery and damages holding that extreme delay in the alternative forum can render that forum inadequate 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