Lowes v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
| Decision Date | 03 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 20-cv-23879-COOKE/O'SULLIVAN |
| Citation | 552 F.Supp.3d 1279 |
| Parties | Gregg LOWES, a resident and citizen of Canada, Plaintiff, v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD., a Liberian Corporation, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
Edward Steven Schwartz, Nicholas I. Gerson, Gerson & Schwartz PA, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff.
Noah Daniel Silverman, Foreman Friedman, PA, Natasha K. Alcivar, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., Miami, FL, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Royal Caribbean Cruises’ motion to dismiss, which the Court converted into a motion for summary judgment. The motion is fully briefed and ripe for adjudication. The main issue before the Court is whether Plaintiff Mr. Gregg Lowes filed this suit within the statute of limitations. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds Mr. Lowes did not. Accordingly, Defendant's motion is GRANTED . Summary judgment will be entered in favor of Defendant, and this action shall be DISMISSED with prejudice .
This case concerns a personal injury occurring on Royal Caribbean's vessel, Spectrum of the Seas. Mr. Gregg Lowes was a passenger aboard the ship. On May 9, 2019, as Mr. Lowes was exiting the ship, he "tripped and fell on a gap in the gangplank ramp, sustaining serious bodily injuries as a result." ECF No. 1 at ¶ 12. Mr. Lowes incurred numerous medical expenses because of these injuries. Id. at ¶ 13.
Mr. Lowes filed this action on September 22, 2020. ECF No. 1. On February 1, 2021, Royal Caribbean moved to dismiss the case with prejudice. ECF No. 11 at 1. Royal Caribbean argues the case should first be dismissed because Mr. Lowes's claims are time barred. Id. at 3. According to Defendant, when Mr. Lowes purchased his ticket aboard the ship, he entered into a so-called ticket contract setting a one-year statute of limitations on actions like this one. Id. Royal Caribbean also argues that Mr. Lowes has failed to show that Royal Caribbean had actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition on the gangplank ramp. Id. at 1.1 Plaintiff Mr. Lowes filed an opposition to this motion, ECF No. 17, which Royal Caribbean replied to, ECF No. 18. On May 17, 2021, the Court converted the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment.
See ECF No. 23.2 The Court granted the parties reasonable opportunity to present additional material relevant to the motion, and the parties submitted additional briefing and supporting exhibits in support of their respective positions. See ECF Nos. 24, 25, 27.
"Summary judgment is appropriate if there are no genuine issues of material fact, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Scott v. United States , 825 F.3d 1275, 1278 (11th Cir. 2016). The Court must "consider all evidence in the record when reviewing a motion for summary judgment—pleadings, depositions, interrogatories, affidavits, etc.—and can only grant summary judgment if everything in the record demonstrates that no genuine issue of material fact exists." Strickland v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co. , 692 F.3d 1151, 1154 (11th Cir. 2012).
"The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact." FindWhat Inv'r Grp. v. FindWhat.com , 658 F.3d 1282, 1307 (11th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). If the moving party meets this burden, "the nonmoving party must present evidence beyond the pleadings showing that a reasonable jury could find in its favor." Fickling v. United States , 507 F.3d 1302, 1304 (11th Cir. 2007). "Speculation does not create a genuine issue of fact[.]" Cordoba v. Dillard's, Inc. , 419 F.3d 1169, 1181 (11th Cir. 2005). "An issue is genuine if there is sufficient evidence such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for either party." Great Am. All. Ins. Co. v. Anderson , 847 F.3d 1327, 1331 (11th Cir. 2017). (citation omitted). "Similarly, an issue is material if it may affect the outcome of the suit under governing law." Id. When deciding whether summary judgment is appropriate, the Court must "resolve all ambiguities and draw reasonable factual inferences from the evidence in the non-movant's favor." Layton v. DHL Exp. (USA), Inc. , 686 F.3d 1172, 1175 (11th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted).
The parties do not dispute that the injury in this case occurred on May 9, 2019 and that the case was filed on September 22, 2020. The parties also agree that they entered into a so-called ticket contract that controls when this action may be filed. The parties do dispute: (1) whether Royal Caribbean has provided an accurate copy of the operative contract to the Court; (2) whether this action is subject to a one- or two-year statute of limitations. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds there is no genuine issue of material fact that Royal Caribbean has presented a copy of the operative contract. Similarly, the Court finds that a one-year statute of limitations applies to this action, and Mr. Lowes's suit is therefore untimely.
The parties dispute whether the contract presented is the operative ticket contract. Mr. Lowes acknowledges in his complaint that he entered into a ticket contract that controls this action. See ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 7, 9. Mr. Lowes has not provided a copy of this contract, nor did he initially challenge that Royal Caribbean had provided a valid copy of said contract. See, e.g. , ECF No. 17 at 2 (). In his supplemental brief, however, he appears to raise two challenges to the validity of this contract. First, he states the writing Royal Caribbean has provided the Court is merely an exemplar, and not the actual contract Mr. Lowes agreed to. ECF No. 25 at 1–2. Second, he states that Royal Caribbean has not provided "any copy of an acceptance report" or other document showing Mr. Lowes accepted the ticket contract. Id. Although he does not say as much, Mr. Lowes appears to suggest that because Royal Caribbean has not demonstrated it has provided the contract Mr. Lowes agreed to, there is a genuine issue of material fact here that warrants a denial of summary judgment.
Meanwhile Royal Caribbean filed with its motion to dismiss a document it states is the operative ticket contract. ECF No. 11-1. Royal Caribbean refiled this same document—along with what it states is the complete guest ticket booklet issued to Mr. Lowes—in its reply brief. ECF No. 18-1. This same filing also includes a document titled "Authorized Consent Information," which appears to be an electronic acceptance of the contract at issue. See id. at 47. Additionally, in response to questions raised by Mr. Lowes about the validity of the contract, and Mr. Lowes's acceptance of the ticket contract, Royal Caribbean also filed a Declaration of Amanda Campos, Director of Guest Claims & Litigation for Royal Caribbean. See ECF No. 24-1. Ms. Campos’ declaration states that as part of the process for booking tickets aboard the Spectrum of the Seas , Mr. Lowes electronically accepted the terms and conditions of a ticket contract. Id. at ¶ 12. Ms. Campos attaches to her declaration a document which she states serves as evidence of electronic acceptance by Mr. Lowes. Id. at Ex. A. (This same document is filed as part of ECF No. 18-1.) Additionally, Ms. Campos confirms Royal Caribbean has provided the Court with the guest ticket booklet issued to Mr. Lowes, which contains a copy of the operative contract. Id. at ¶ 13. Mr. Lowes does not contest the veracity of Ms. Campos’ declaration, nor does he present to the Court any evidence to dispute that (1) Royal Caribbean has provided a copy of the operative contract or (2) the electronic acceptance provided by Royal Caribbean is deficient. Likewise, though he acknowledges that there is an operative contract that controls the statute of limitations question below, he does not present the Court with a copy of said document.
As the moving party, Royal Caribbean here has the initial burden to show an absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See FindWhat , 658 F.3d at 1307. The only factual disputes concern whether the contract before the Court is the operative contract, and whether Mr. Lowes agreed to that contract. Royal Caribbean here has met its initial burden by providing the Court with what it says is the operative contract, along with a sworn declaration from one of its employees, and an electronic confirmation from Mr. Lowes agreeing to this contract. The burden therefore shifts to Mr. Lowes to provide some evidence that this is not the contract he agreed to, or that he failed to agree to any ticket contract at all. Specifically, Mr. Lowes must provide "enough evidence such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for either party." Anderson , 847 F.3d at 1331. Mr. Lowes, however, provides no evidence to support his position—just argument in briefing. Accordingly, the Court finds this insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact, and that the contract presented by Royal Caribbean is the operative ticket contract agreed to by Mr. Lowes.
The parties dispute what part of the ticket contract provides the statute of limitations controlling this action. Royal Caribbean argues that Section 10(a) provides a one-year statute of limitations here. Section 10 is titled "NOTICE OF CLAIMS AND COMMENCEMENT OF SUIT OR ARBITRATION; SECURITY." Section 10(a) reads:
TIME LIMITS FOR PERSONAL INJURY/ILLNESS/DEATH CLAIMS: NO SUIT SHALL BE MAINTAINABLE AGAINST CARRIER, THE VESSEL OR THE TRANSPORT FOR PERSONAL INJURY, ILLNESS OR DEATH OF ANY PASSENGER UNLESS [...] SUIT IS COMMENCED (FILED) WITHIN ONE (1) YEAR FROM THE DATE OF SUCH INJURY, ILLNESS OR DEATH[.]
Mr. Lowes argues that Section 11(e) provides a two-year statu...
To continue reading
Request your trial