Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Doe, 3D00-2148.

• Decision Date: 27 September 2000
• Docket Number: No. 3D00-2148.,3D00-2148.
• Citation: 767 So.2d 626
• Parties: ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., a Liberian corporation, Petitioner, v. Jane DOE and her spouse, John Doe, Respondents.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

767 So.2d 626

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., a Liberian corporation, Petitioner, v. Jane DOE and her spouse, John Doe, Respondents.

No. 3D00-2148.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

September 27, 2000.

Kaye, Rose & Partners, LLP, Miami; Hicks, Anderson & Kneale, P.A., Miami, and John A. Greco, Miami, for petitioner.

James M. Walker, Miami, for respondents.

Before JORGENSON, COPE and GODERICH, JJ.

COPE, J.

Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., petitions for a writ of prohibition, contending that the trial judge should have disqualified herself. We agree and grant the petition.

Plaintiff Jane Doe brought suit against Royal Caribbean, alleging that while on a Royal Caribbean cruise, a bartender put drugs in her drink and then sexually assaulted her. Her husband, John Doe, sued for loss of consortium.

Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, at a hearing on a discovery dispute, the court said:

THE COURT: You know, this is not the only case I have of sexual assaults on cruise ship lines. In fact, this topic has gotten so broad throughout the United States that—I even remember seeing some expose on the national news magazine shows, I don't know what—I get them all mixed up. I don't know whether they're Dateline, 20/20, or 48 Hours, but it's there.

It's time that the cruise lines recognize human nature and the problem and dealt with it instead of saying it doesn't exist.

(Emphasis added).

Later in the hearing the court suggested that discovery matters in the case be handled by a master, and, referring to the cruise line industry, said:

They have bitten the bullet, gone to the wall, all of the other things they want to say, I'm not sure that that's a wise corporate policy, but that's their choice, and they're entitled to do it.

And my observation, from all of—and it's not just them because I'm not exactly sure what—oh, but in the cruise line industry, I find that discovery is a matter of course, it's like pulling eye teeth. They have obviously made that type of decision.

Royal Caribbean filed a motion for disqualification, which the trial court denied as legally insufficient and untimely, and this petition followed.

We think the quoted remarks are "`reasonably sufficient' to create a `well-founded fear' in the mind of a party that he or she will not receive a fair trial." Fischer v. Knuck, 497 So.2d 240, 242 (Fla. 1986) (citations omitted); see Dickenson v. Parks, 104 Fla. 577, 582, 140 So. 459, 462 (1932). The remarks suggest that the court has pre-existing unfavorable opinions about the management and litigation tactics of the cruise line industry. The remarks did not flow...