Godreay v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
| Decision Date | 30 January 2018 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO: 17-1236 (PAD) |
| Parties | PEDRO J. GODREAY, et al. Plaintiffs, v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Plaintiffs Pedro J. Godreau, Felita Santos, Pedro Godreau-Santos and Lyda Sierra initiated this action against Royal Caribbean Cruises, LTD, seeking recovery of damages under Articles 1802 and 1803 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31 §§ 5141-5142. Before the court is Royal Caribbean's motion to dismiss or for transfer of venue (Docket No. 5), which plaintiffs opposed (Docket No. 7). Royal Caribbean replied (Docket No. 11). For the reasons explained below, the request to dismiss is DENIED, the alternate request to transfer is GRANTED, and the case is TRANSFERRED to the Southern District of Florida.
In essence, plaintiffs allege that: they purchased a vacation cruise on board the Adventure of the Seas from Royal Caribbean for travel from February 20, 2016 to February 27, 2016 (Docket No. 1 at ¶ 14); while on the cruise, on February 22, 2016, Pedro J. Godreau, then 73 years old, decided to use the Jacuzzis located at Deck 11 with his wife and nieces (id. at ¶ 22); one of his nieces requested assistance from the staff to sit in a hydraulic chair located in the pool area for people with physical disabilities, to help him get into the Jacuzzi (id. at ¶¶ 23-24); and the hydraulic chair broke down and caused damages to Mr. Godreau (id. at ¶¶ 26-27). On that basis, they claim Royal Caribbean was negligent by creating an unsafe or foreseeable dangerous condition that was under its exclusive control and is liable for the allegedly resulting damages. Id. at ¶¶ 40-41, 46-54. Royal Caribbean moves to dismiss or to transfer the case to the Southern District of Florida based on the passenger contract's forum selection clause (Docket No. 5), included as Exhibits A and B of its motion.1
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice," a court may transfer an action to any other district where it might have been brought or to any district to which all parties have consented." In a typical case not involving a forum selection clause, a court considering a Section 1404(a) motion must weigh "the convenience of the parties and various public-interest considerations," and determine, whether on balance a transfer would serve the convenience of parties and witnesses and otherwise promote the interest of justice. See, Atlantic Marine, 134 S.Ct. at 581 (). But when the parties' contract contains a valid forum-selection clause, the Section 1404(a) analysis is adjusted in three ways. Id.
First, plaintiff's choice of forum merits no weight. Id. Rather, as the party defying the forum-selection clause, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that transfer to the forum for which the parties bargained is unwarranted. Second, a court should not consider arguments about the parties' private interests, as these weigh "entirely" in the preselected forum's favor. Id. at 582. In consequence, a court may only consider factors related to the public interest. Third, a transfer of venue under Section 1404(a) will not carry with it the original venue's choice-of-law rules, which may, in some circumstances, affect public interest considerations. Id. So to defeat a transfer pursuant to a forum selection clause, the non-moving party must show that public interest factors "overwhelmingly disfavor a transfer." Id. at 583.
Along the same line, the First Circuit has focused on a "reasonable communicativeness standard." See, Lousararian v. Royal Caribbean Corp., 951 F.2d 7, 8 (1st Cir. 1991)(quoting Shankles v. Costa Armatori, S.P.A., 722 F.2d 861, 865 (1st Cir. 1983)). The standard is designed to give passengers a fair chance to learn about conditions affecting their legal rights that otherwise might be buried within the fine print of adhesion contracts of passage. Id. To that end, a court must examine the facial clarity of the ticket contract and whether its language and appearance make the relevant provisions sufficiently obvious and understandable. Id. Likewise, it should examine the circumstances of the passenger possession and familiarity with the ticket, scrutinizing any extrinsic factors regarding the passenger's ability to become meaningfully informed of the contractual terms at stake. Id. at 9. Finally, forum selection clauses contained in form passage contracts must be fundamentally fair. See, Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 595 (1991)(emphasizing scrutiny under stated standard).
Within this framework, forum selection clauses have been enforced absent evidence of fraud or overreaching. Id. (). Tracking these concepts, other courts have required a showing of grave difficulty and inconvenience in litigating at the cruise line's choice of forum in order to invalidate a forum selection clause on grounds of unfairness. See, Gómez v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, 964 F. Supp. 47, 51 (D.P.R. 1997)(discussing issue). On these formulations, they look into whether for all practical purposes plaintiff would be deprived of his day in court. See, Batiz v. Carnival Corp., 915 F.Supp.2d 231, 235 (D.P.R. 2012)(quoting M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 19 (1972)). Plaintiff has a heavy burden of proof to establish inconvenience. Id. The determination of enforceability is made on a case-by-case basis. See, Lousararian, 951 F.2d at 9 (so acknowledging). Differing circumstances may render the same ticket binding on one passenger in one case, yet invalid as against another passenger in another case. Id.
The cover of the "Guest Ticket Booklet" contains a notice at the bottom of the page, in bold and capital letters, stating:
IMPORTANT NOTICE TO GUESTS: Your Cruise Ticket Contract is contained in this booklet. The Contract contains important limitations on the rights of passengers. It is important that you carefully read all the terms of the Contract, paying particular attention to Sections 11 and 12, and retain it for future reference. Fill out guest information, including mandatory information atwww.RoyalCaribbean.com/onlinecheckin. (Bold in original; emphasis in italics added)
See, Docket No. 5-1 at pp. 3 and 21. In turn, Clause 11 of the Cruise/Cruisetour Ticket Contract, reads:
See, Docket No. 5.1 at pp. 12 and 32. The ticket contract and the language used made the relevant provisions sufficiently obvious and understandable to adequately communicate to plaintiffs the terms of the contract - including the forum selection clause. See, González-Martinez v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., 94 F.Supp.3d 147, 154 (D.P.R. 2015)(reaching same conclusion in connection with identical provision). Similarly, plaintiffs had the ability to become meaningfully informed of the contractual terms at stake. They assert that the booklet containing the forum selection clause and the other contract terms was not in the materials they received when they purchased the tickets for the cruise (Docket No. 7 at ¶ 6). However, they did not provide evidence discrediting or contradicting Royal Caribbean's statement that the passenger tickets used for all passengers traveling on board the "Adventure of the Seas" carried the forum-selection clause.
In the same way, plaintiffs' assertion does not mean that they were not meaningfully informed of the contents of the booklet - which even carried the passengers' luggage tags - as they must have received it prior to embarking on the cruise. See, Shankles, 722 F.2d at 865 (). As the First Circuit has explained, a passenger's familiarity with a ticket contract does not require actual knowledge of its terms. Instead, the focus is on the opportunity to obtain such knowledge. See, Lousararian, 951 F.2d at 11.3 That requirement is met here. Plaintiffs argue that the forum selection clause should be construed in their favor because they are "the non-drafting" parties (Docket No. 7 at ¶ 6). But the Supreme Court has rejected the argument that "non-negotiated forum selection clause in a form ticket contract is never enforceable simply because is not the subject of bargaining." Gibson, 2017 WL2859744 at *4 ().
Lastly, the forum selection clause is fundamentally fair. Plaintiffs do not allege that the clause was the result of fraud of overreaching. In fact, the clause confirms that Royal Caribbean has its principal place of business in Miami. Many of its ships routinely call in the Port of Miami on an ongoing basis. See, Gómez, 964 F.Supp. at 52 (so noting). And even though common sense dictates that an individual purchasing a ticket will not have bargaining parity with a cruise line, including a reasonable forum clause in a form contract of this kind is permissible for several reasons: (1) a cruise line has special interest in limiting the fora in which it may be subject to suit, for the plurality of the passengers' residences would expose it to litigation in several different fora; (2) a clause establishing ex ante the forum for dispute resolution has the salutary effect of...
To continue reading
Request your trial