court’s determination of res judicata or collateral estoppel.” EEOC v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 383 F.3d 1280, 1285 (11th Cir.2004). 4 . Moreover, the two analyses also differ insofar as Florida's forum non conveniens test considers the extent of the defendant’s business activities in Florida alone, whereas the Rhoditis analysis considers business activities in the entire United States. Compare Rolls-Royce, Inc. v. Garcia, 77 So.3d 855, 861-62 (Fla.Ct.App.2012) (reversing where trial court erroneously considered defendant's activities outside of Florida), with Rhoditis, 398 U.S. at 307, 90 S.Ct. 1731 (considering business activities in the entire U.S.). The district court noted this discrepancy and gave preclusive effect only to the state c ales, 656 So.2d 541, 544-545 (Fla.Ct.App.1995) (<HOLDING>). 7 . Although the Florida court's order
holding that prior dismissal for lack of standing was not an adjudication on the merits under language identical to rule 1420b subsequent suit not barred by res judicata holding that a dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is an adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata holding that res judicata applies when the question of jurisdiction is raised and determined holding res judicata inapplicable where previous dismissal was based on lack of jurisdiction holding that res judicata barred a claim that had been voluntarily abandoned in a previous litigation