Martins v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.

Citation174 F.Supp.3d 1345
Decision Date29 March 2016
Docket NumberCASE NO. 15–21124–CIV–GOODMAN
Parties Marla Martins, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

Joseph J. Rinaldi, Jr., Brill & Rinaldi, Coral Gables, FL, Robert J. McKee, The McKee Law Group LLC, David Wayne Brill, Brill & Rinaldi, The Law Firm, Weston, FL, for Plaintiffs.

Marc J. Schleier, Fowler White Burnett, Miami, FL, Michael J. Drahos, Fowler White Burnett, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendant.

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Jonathan Goodman

, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter arises from the death of Briana Martins (Briana), a seventeen-year old resident of New Jersey, aboard the vessel Explorer of the Seas, operated by Defendant Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. (Defendant or “RCCL”), in August of 2013. [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiffs1 allege that Briana's death was caused by the ingestion of bacteria-ridden food aboard the Explorer of the Seas, that the shipboard medical staff negligently treated Briana's illness, and that, individually, Marla, Costa, G.E. and Tatiana suffered extreme emotional distress because of RCCL's negligence. [Id. ].

In a motion, RCCL seeks to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint, or, in the alternative, to strike impermissible claims for damages and Plaintiffs' individual claims. [ECF No. 7]. Having reviewed the complaint, the motion, the response, the reply and the pertinent portions of the record, for the reasons outlined below, the Undersigned denies in large part and grants in small part Defendant's motion to dismiss.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Procedural History

Plaintiffs filed a seven-count complaint alleging: wrongful death under the Death on the High Seas Act (“DOHSA”) (Count I); alternative wrongful death under DOHSA based upon apparent agency (Count II); negligent hiring, retention and training (Count III); and negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”) for Marla, Costa, G.E. and Tatiana (Counts IV–VII). [ECF No. 1]. RCCL filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint, or, in the alternative, to strike impermissible claims for damages and Plaintiffs' individual claims. [ECF No. 7]. Plaintiffs responded in opposition. [ECF No. 8]. Defendant filed a reply in support of the motion. [ECF No. 10].

Specifically, RCCL's motion seeks to dismiss or strike certain pleadings on five separate grounds. First, Defendant moves to dismiss Counts IV through VII with prejudice, arguing that DOHSA preempts claims for NIED, or, alternatively, that Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to support NIED claims. [ECF No. 7, pp. 3–9]. Second, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to support their claim for negligent hiring, retention and training. [Id., at pp. 9–11]. Third, RCCL argues that Plaintiffs' complaint violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

by improperly incorporating by reference all previously-stated facts for each count, thereby creating an impermissible “shotgun” pleading. [Id., at pp. 11–13]. Fourth, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs' claims for damages under Florida and Bahamian law should be stricken. [Id., at pp. 13–16]. And finally, RCCL argues that Plaintiffs' individual claims should be stricken. [Id., at pp. 16–17].

B. Facts2

Plaintiffs and Briana boarded the Explorer of the Seas on August 22, 2013 as paying passengers for a cruise vacation scheduled to return on August 31, 2013. [ECF No. 1, p. 3]. From the time they boarded the ship, Briana and Plaintiffs all consumed only food prepared and provided by Defendant. [Id. ]. Between August 24, 2013 and August 26, 2013, Briana ingested bacteria-ridden food prepared by Defendant aboard the Explorer of the Seas . [Id., at p. 4].

Briana first reported to the shipboard medical facility on the evening of August 27, 2013, complaining of vomiting, abdominal cramps and diarrhea, which began early that morning. [Id. ]. Briana advised the shipboard medical staff that she had bariatric surgery

approximately a year before. [Id. ]. The shipboard medical staff administered Metoclopramide and Dicyclomine and sent Briana back to her room with Metoclopramide and Imodium capsules. [Id. ]. Hours later, this time with Briana in a wheelchair, Marla and Briana returned to the shipboard medical facility and advised that Briana continued to suffer from her previous symptoms and now was also hyperventilating, had pain in her shoulders and chest and a burning sensation in her abdomen. [Id., at pp. 4–5]. Shipboard medical staff conducted a complete blood count (“CBC”) test and determined that Briana's results were normal, so they advised her to take the previously-provided medications and return to her cabin.

At approximately 9:30 AM, while the ship was at port in Labadee, Haiti,3 Marla, Costa and G.E. returned to their cabin from breakfast and found Briana vomiting in the shower. [Id., at p. 6]. Briana collapsed on the shower floor in front of Marla. [Id. ]. Costa, G.E. and Tatiana also entered the bathroom and witnessed Briana collapsed on the floor with Marla while still vomiting. [Id. ]. Costa attempted to help Briana sit upright, while Tatiana stroked Briana's hair. [Id. ]. The shipboard nurse responded to an emergency call from the cabin and confirmed that Briana had no pulse, was not breathing and still had vomit in her mouth. [Id. ]. Additional medical staff were called. [Id. ]. Resuscitation efforts by additional shipboard medical staff were unsuccessful and Briana was pronounced dead at the scene. [Id., at p. 7]. Briana died of peritonitis

due to small bowel anastomotic perforation. [Id. ].

Additionally, Plaintiffs contend that the shipboard medical staff were acting as employees or actual agents of Defendant in various ways. [Id., at pp. 7–9].

II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES

In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6)

, a court must take all well-pleaded facts in the plaintiff's complaint and all reasonable inferences drawn from those facts as true. Jackson v. Okaloosa Cnty., Fla ., 21 F.3d 1531, 1534 (11th Cir.1994). “A pleading must contain ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) (2) ). While detailed factual allegations are not always necessary in order to prevent dismissal of a complaint, the allegations must ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’ Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957) ).

A complaint must provide “more than labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955

. See also

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (explaining that the Rule 8(a) (2) pleading standard “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully- harmed-me accusation”). Nor can a complaint rest on ‘naked assertion[s] devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’ Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (alteration in original))

The Supreme Court has emphasized that [t]o survive a motion to dismiss a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ) (emphasis added); see also

Am. Dental Assoc. v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283, 1288–90 (11th Cir.2010). [C]onclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of fact, or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal.” Oxford Asset Mgmt., Ltd. v. Jaharis, 297 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir.2002).

Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is “a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937

. Moreover, when the “well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not show[n]—that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).

Because all facts set forth in the plaintiff's complaint are to be accepted as true, the court limits its consideration on a dismissal motion “to the pleadings and exhibits attached thereto.” Grossman v. Nationsbank, N.A., 225 F.3d 1228, 1231 (11th Cir.2000)

(quoting GSW, Inc. v. Long County, 999 F.2d 1508, 1510 (11th Cir.1993) ).

While the court is required to accept as true all allegations contained in the complaint, courts “are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955

; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. “Dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6) is not appropriate ‘unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’ Magluta v. Samples, 375 F.3d 1269, 1273 (11th Cir.2004) (quoting Conley, 355 U.S. at 45–46, 78 S.Ct. 99 ). Although, as noted, a court must accept as true a plaintiff's allegations, a court may dismiss a complaint on a dispositive issue of law. Marshall Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Marshall Cnty. Gas Dist., 992 F.2d 1171, 1174 (11th Cir.1993).

III. ANALYSIS
A. Counts IV through VII should not be dismissed with prejudice.
1. DOHSA does not preempt the NIED claims.

Defendant argues that DOHSA preempts any cause of action that arises out of or relates to a death on the high seas. DOHSA provides

When the death of an individual is caused by wrongful act, neglect, or default occurring on the high seas beyond 3 nautical miles from the shore of the United States, the personal representative of the decedent may bring a civil action in admiralty against the person or vessel
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • United States v. Tardon
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • 8 Octubre 2020
    ...Inc. v. Tropical Shipping & Constr. Co., Ltd. , 240 F.3d 956, 965 n.14 (11th Cir. 2001) ; see also Martins v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. , 174 F. Supp. 3d 1345, 1351 n.4 (S.D. Fla. 2016).Second, neither the Report and Recommendations nor the Order adopting it cite to any law to support th......
  • Amin v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • 18 Diciembre 2018
    ...Daimler fair notice of the claims being lodged against it. That is all Rule 8(a)(2) requires. See Martins v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. , 174 F.Supp.3d 1345, 1358 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (no "shotgun" pleading where although "complaint does reference previously-asserted facts in each count ... c......
  • Thompson v. Carnival Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • 30 Marzo 2016
    ... ... 19); and Defendants Delisle Walwyn & Co. Ltd. (Delisle Walwyn) and Vacation and Tour Consultants (St ... Tarasewicz v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd ., No. 14CIV60885, 2015 WL 3970546, ... ...
  • Twyman v. Carnival Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • 16 Octubre 2019
    ...defendant's negligent conduct, or who are placed in immediate risk of physical harm by that conduct." Martins v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. , 174 F. Supp. 3d 1345, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (citation omitted). "[P]laintiffs must allege more than merely being a witness to a traumatic event to ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT