Singh v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
| Citation | 576 F.Supp.3d 1166 |
| Decision Date | 10 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 20-24987-CIV-MARTINEZ-BECERRA |
| Parties | Omkar SINGH, as personal representative of the Estates of Pratap Singh and Mayuari Singh, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
Jacqueline Garcell, Luis Alexander Perez, Michael A. Winkleman, Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina, Winkleman, P.A., Miami, FL, for Plaintiff.
Carlos Javier Chardon, Jerry Dean Hamilton, Spencer Burgess Price, Hamilton, Miller & Birthisel, LLP, Garrett Peter Keane, Mase Mebane & Briggs, P.A., Miami, FL, for Defendant Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
Darren Wayne Friedman, Marian Laida Rivera, Foreman Friedman, PA, Miami, FL, for Defendant ID Tours New Zealand Limited.
Christopher John Mueller, Taylor, Day, Grimm, Boyd, Kenneth Allen Tomchin, Taylor Day Grimm & Boyd, Thomas Albert Boyd, Jr., Boyd Law, P.A., Jacksonville, FL, for Defendant White Island Tours Limited.
OMNIBUS ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant, White Island Tours, Ltd.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction, (ECF No. 19), Defendant, ID Tours New Zealand Limited's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (collectively, the "Excursion Entities’ Motions), (ECF No. 23); and Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Failure to State a Cause of Action ("RCL's Motion"), (ECF No. 10). After careful consideration, the Court finds that the Excursion Companies’ Motions are GRANTED and RCL's Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part .
Pratap Singh and Mayauri Singh (the "Singhs") were honeymooners on Royal Caribbean Cruise Line's ("RCL") vessel, the Ovation of the Seas. (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 26, ECF No. 1). The Singhs purchased from RCL a ticket to attend an excursion in New Zealand called the "White Island Volcano Experience Cruise and Guided Exploration" ("Excursion"). (Id. ¶¶ 16, 23). RCL advertised the Excursion on its promotional materials, including its website, and referred to the White Island volcano as "one of the most active volcanoes in the world." (Id. ¶ 21). RCL also classified the Excursion as "strenuous[ ]." (Id. ). Defendant ID Tours New Zealand Ltd. ("IDT") is contracted by RCL as an independent contractor to offer excursions to RCL's passengers, including the subject Excursion. (IDT Mot., at 4, ECF No. 23; Palmer Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7, ECF No. 23-1). IDT is incorporated and based in New Zealand. (Compl. ¶ 4; IDT Mot., at 3). The Excursion was owned, operated, and managed by Defendant White Island Tours Ltd. ("WIT" and together with IDT, the "Excursion Entities"). (See Compl. ¶¶ 14, 23; WIT Mot. ¶¶ 3–4, ECF No. 19; IDT Mot. ¶ 3). WIT is a corporation based in Whakatane, New Zealand. (Compl. ¶ 4; WIT Mot. ¶ 1).
The Singhs attended the Excursion on December 9, 2019. (Compl. ¶ 26). Unfortunately for the Singhs and many others on the island, the volcano erupted while the Singhs were taking a tour of what appeared to be the center of the volcano, causing them severe injuries that led to their tragic deaths. (Id. ¶ 27). Unbeknownst to the Singhs, several weeks before the Excursion, the volcano was "showing signs of unrest[.]" (Id. ). Indeed, "a few weeks prior to the [Excursion], the volcano's alert level was raised to a level 2 (the highest level it can be when it is not erupting), indicating a heightened volcanic unrest due to the increased activity." (Id. ¶¶ 21, 35). The alert levels remained high even one week before the Excursion. (Id. ¶ 36). Further, two weeks before the Excursion, a 5.9 earthquake struck approximately 6.2 miles northeast of the volcano. (Id. ). The Singhs were not notified of the increased alert levels when they purchased their excursion ticket with RCL or on the day of the tour. (Id. ¶¶ 27, 29). After the incident, RCL canceled all shore excursions to active volcanoes, including the one to White Island. (Id. ¶ 28).
Plaintiff, Omkar Singh, as personal representative of the Singhs’ Estates, filed this action against RCL and the Excursion Entities on behalf of the Estates and on behalf of all survivors who are entitled to recover. (Compl. ¶ 2). Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action: (1) negligent misrepresentation against RCL; (2) negligent selection and/or retention against RCL; (3) negligent failure to warn against RCL; (4) general negligence against RCL; (5) negligence against the Excursion Entities; (6) negligence against all Defendants based on apparent agency or agency by estoppel; (7) negligence against all Defendants based on joint venture between RCL and the Excursion Entities; (8) third-party beneficiary; and (9) breach of non-delegable duty against RCL. Defendants each filed separate motions to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 10, 19, 23). The Excursion Entities both move to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction. RCL moves to dismiss all counts against it for failure to state a claim.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) allows a defendant to move to dismiss a claim against it by asserting the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. A federal court sitting in Florida may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant "only if the requirements of (1) the relevant state long-arm statute; and (2) the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States are both satisfied." Johnson v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. , 474 F. Supp. 3d 1260, 1265 (S.D. Fla. 2020). Although "determining whether jurisdiction is appropriate under Florida's Long-Arm Statute is a separate inquiry from determining whether exercising personal jurisdiction comports with the Due Process Clause" it is clear that the constitutional requirements are "more restrictive."
Melgarejo v. Pycsa Panama, S.A. , 537 Fed. App'x 852, 859 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting Internet Sols. Corp. v. Marshall , 39 So.3d 1201, 1207 (Fla. 2010) ).
To establish personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, a plaintiff "initially need only allege sufficient facts to make out a prima facie case of jurisdiction." Posner v. Essex Ins. Co., Ltd. , 178 F.3d 1209, 1214 (11th Cir. 1999). The Court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true, to the extent they are uncontroverted by the defendant's affidavit. Peruyero v. Airbus S.A.S. , 83 F. Supp. 3d 1283 (S.D Fla. 2014).
If a plaintiff pleads sufficient facts to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction, the burden shifts to the defendant to make a prima facie showing that the state's long-arm statute is inapplicable. See Future Tech. Today, Inc. v. OSF Healthcare Sys. , 218 F.3d 1247, 1249 (11th Cir. 2000). If the evidence proffered by the defendant contradicts the plaintiff's allegations, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to "substantiate the jurisdictional allegations in the complaint by affidavits or other competent proof, and not merely reiterate the factual allegations in the complaint." Id. Nonetheless, a party cannot meet its evidentiary burden by submitting affidavits asserting only "conclusory assertions of ultimate fact." Posner , 178 F.3d at 1215. Rather, the affidavits must "set forth specific factual declarations within the affiant's personal knowledge." Id. "The district court must construe all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff when dealing with conflicting evidence." Peruyero , 83 F. Supp. 3d at 1287 (citing PVC Windoors, Inc. v. Babbitbay Beach Constr., N.V. , 598 F.3d 802, 810 (11th Cir. 2010) ).
"To survive a motion to dismiss [under Rule 12(b)(6) ], a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). Although this pleading standard "does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ ... it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Id. (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). Pleadings must contain "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (citation omitted). "[O]nly a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (alteration added) (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ).
To meet this "plausibility standard," a plaintiff must "plead[ ] factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (alteration added) (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). Id.
Defendants WIT and IDT move to dismiss the Complaint arguing that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them. RCL, on the other hand, moves to dismiss Counts I, II, III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, and IX for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). RCL also moves to strike Plaintiff's claims for non-pecuniary damages based on the Death on the High Seas Act ("DOHSA"), 46 U.S.C. § 30303. The Court turns first to the Excursion Entities’ Motions. Then, it addresses RCL's motion to dismiss on the merits of the complaint.
The Excursion Entities move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. They argue that contrary to Plaintiff's allegations in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dome v. Celebrity Cruises Inc.
..."The duty to warn extends only to specific, known dangers ..., not to general hazards." Singh v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. , 576 F.Supp.3d 1166, 1186, No. 20-CIV-24987, (S.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2021). However, the cruise line operator must have "actual or constructive notice of the risk-creat......
-
Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps. ("AFGE") Local 501 v. Biden
... ... Hockman-Lewis Ltd. , 734 F.2d 767, 769 (11th Cir. 1984) ). 24 V. Conclusion ... ...
-
Hagle v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
...is also of no merit. An “[o]pen and obvious condition[] are those that should be obvious by the ordinary use of one's senses.” Singh, 576 F.Supp.3d at 1186 (quoting v. Carnival Corp., 85 F.Supp.3d 1341, 1344 (S.D. Fla. 2015)). The existence of such an open and obvious condition may preclude......