Tananta v. CRUISE SHIPS CATERING AND SERV.

• Decision Date: 22 December 2004
• Citation: 909 So.2d 874
• Parties: Oriel TANANTA, et al., Appellants/Appellees, v. CRUISE SHIPS CATERING AND SERVICES INT'L., N.V., et al., Appellees/Appellants. Rene E. Chamo, Appellant/Petitioner, v. Costa Crociere, S.p.A., etc., et al., Appellees/Respondents. Fernando Simpson, Appellant/Petitioner, v. Costa Crociere, S.p.A., etc., et al., Appellees/Respondents.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

909 So.2d 874

Oriel TANANTA, et al., Appellants/Appellees, v. CRUISE SHIPS CATERING AND SERVICES INT'L., N.V., et al., Appellees/Appellants.

Rene E. Chamo, Appellant/Petitioner, v. Costa Crociere, S.p.A., etc., et al., Appellees/Respondents.

Fernando Simpson, Appellant/Petitioner, v. Costa Crociere, S.p.A., etc., et al., Appellees/Respondents.

Nos. 3D03-1799, 3D02-2788, 3D03-563, 3D03-1719, 3D03-2034, 3D03-2249, 3D03-2075, 3D02-2633, 3D03-700.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

December 22, 2004.

Rehearing Denied April 1, 2005.

The Watford Law Firm and Rebecca B. Watford, Miami; J.M. Perez, Jr.; David H. Pollack; Lipcon, Margulies & Alsina, P.A., Miami; and J.H. Zidell, for appellants/appellees, Tananta.

McAlpin & Brais, P.A., Miami, and Richard J. McAlpin; Robert S. Glazier, James J. Feeney; Russell M. Pfeifer, Miami, for appellee/appellants, Cruise Ships Catering and Services.

McCormick & Koretzky, Miami; Philip D. Parrish, Miami, for appellant, Chamo.

McAlpin & Brais, P.A., and Richard J. McAlpin; Russell Pfiefer, for appellee, Costa Crociere.

Elizabeth K. Russo, Miami; Rivkind, Pedraza & Margulies, Miami for appellant, Simpson.

McAlpin & Brais, P.A., and Richard J. McAlpin; Robert S. Glazier, for appellees, Costa Crociere.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE, LEVY, GERSTEN, GODERICH, GREEN, FLETCHER, RAMIREZ, WELLS and SHEPHERD, JJ.

EN BANC

SHEPHERD, J.

This consolidated appeal involves the fate of five foreign seamen wishing to litigate their personal injury claims in Miami-Dade County. We are confronted with a recurring question: whether Florida taxpayers via our state court system are required to provide a forum for the resolution of a personal injury claim by a foreign seaman who has had but a fleeting contact here and who is injured on a vessel far from our shores. We believe this question has been answered by the Florida Supreme Court in Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 674 So.2d 86 (Fla. 1996). We find that the seamen's individual litigation must be housed elsewhere, and direct them to seek relief in their own country, Italy or the Netherlands Antilles.

I. The Plaintiffs and their ties to South Florida

Every seaman represented in this consolidated appeal is a foreign seaman injured on a foreign ship while in foreign or international waters.

Oriel Tananta is a citizen and resident of Peru, who worked on the ship Costa Marina. He was an assistant waiter who injured himself in February 2000 while the ship was off the coast of Argentina. He received medical treatment in Argentina, and then in Peru.

Luis Vega is a citizen and resident of Columbia. He, too, worked on the Costa Marina. He was injured in September 1996 while the ship was off the coast of Italy. He fell off his bunk bed, injuring his shoulder. Vega's roommates who witnessed the fall are of Honduran and Guatemalan descent. He filled out his accident form with the help of a Columbian friend. Vega received medical treatment by the ship's doctor, an Italian national, and additional care in Italy.

Eleuterio Guzman Cruz is a citizen and resident of Honduras. He was a deck utility worker aboard the Costa Marina, who injured his arm pulling up cable lines. At the time of his injury in September 2000, the ship was cruising in international waters. Some of his complaints received attention from the ship's doctors who were Italian and French nationals. He subsequently received medical care for his arm in Estonia, and then returned to Honduras for further treatment.

Fernando Simpson is a citizen and resident of Costa Rica, who worked on the ship Costa Allegra. He was a galley worker who fell while trying to clean a large oven. His only eyewitness was a Honduran shipmate. He was injured in November 1998 while the ship was in transit from the Netherlands to Brazil. Following the accident, he left the ship and received medical treatment in Brazil. He then returned home to Costa Rica for further medical care.

Rene Chamo is a citizen and resident of Guatemala, who worked as a linen valet aboard the ship Costa Classica. He was injured lifting a mattress in September 1996 while the ship was sailing off of the Italian coast. He received care from the ship's doctor, an Italian national, and then at a shore-side facility in Italy. He also returned home to Guatemala to receive further medical attention.

Each of these claimants has few, if any, ties to Florida. It appears that the seamen came through Miami during their pre-employment medical screening, and executed their employment contract here, as opposed to in each of their respective homelands. Additionally, certain claimants received medical care in Miami, but the record suggests this was only in conjunction with or after each had retained or consulted with counsel here.

II. The Defendants and their ties to Florida

While some Costa vessels do on occasion enter the United States, the bulk (85%) of Costa's business comes from overseas. The Costa Classica (on which Chamo was injured) is a Liberian-flagged vessel that does not regularly call on U.S. ports, and at no point during Chamos employment aboard the ship did the vessel call at a U.S. port. Indeed, there is no record evidence that the ship has ever been in a U.S. port. The Costa Marina (on which Tananta, Cruz and Vega were injured) was a Liberian-flagged vessel; it has, however, subsequently been re-flagged under the laws of Italy. It continues to cruise between European ports in the summertime and between South American ports in the wintertime. Similarly, there is no record evidence that either the Costa Marina, or the Costa Allegra (Simpson's assigned ship) called on U.S. ports.

In the same vein, the corporate entities behind these vessels have equally sparse connections to the United States, and especially to Florida. The Costa Marina, Costa Allegra, and Costa Classica are owned by an Italian corporation, Costa Crociere S.p.A., which has no offices or employees in Florida, and conducts its day-to-day business from its 450-employee office in Genoa, Italy.¹ Costa Crociere, S.p.A. markets its Costa cruises in the United States through its North American general sales agent, Costa Cruise Lines, N.V., which is a registered Netherlands Antilles corporation with offices located in Hollywood, Florida. Costa Cruise Lines, N.V. is one of eight marketing companies worldwide, and its territory is not limited to the United States, but also includes Venezuela, Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and the Caribbean.

Prestige Cruises N.V. is the bareboat charterer (owner pro hac vice) of these vessels, and has a registered office in Curacao, Netherlands Antilles. It contracts with a subsidiary Prestige Cruise Management S.A.M. to perform the actual shipboard management of the hotel and catering functions. Neither entity has any employees or offices in the United States.

Cruise Ships Catering and Services International N.V. (hereafter "CSCS"), is also a Netherlands Antilles corporation that purports to have its principal place of business in Curacao, Netherlands Antilles. CSCS was responsible for hiring and placing each of the claimants aboard one of the ships. CSCS contracts with various independent contractors in Monaco with regard to the accounting and personnel related aspects of these vessels, and similarly contracts in large part with a Hollywood, Florida company — International Risk Services, Inc. (hereafter "IRSI") — to administer medical benefits and claims for its unlicensed crew member-employees.²

III. The Propriety of Applying Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens and our precedent in Cruise Ships Catering and Services Int'l v. Tananta, 823 So.2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

Despite their tenuous connection to our shores, each of the foreign seamen filed an action in Miami-Dade County seeking damages for Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure. The first of these cases that percolated to this court on appeal was that of Peruvian Oriel Tananta. See Cruise Ships Catering and Servs. Int'l v. Tananta, 823 So.2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)

. In that case, we applied Kinney to hold that the Peruvian seaman's personal injury case required dismissal under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The four other seamen whose cases followed Tananta have suggested that our decision in Tananta was erroneous. They ask that we suspend the natural working of Tananta on the grounds that we were misled about the corporate existence of the defendant CSCS in that litigation.

We have carefully reviewed the allegations of falsity made and the record supporting them, including affidavits,³ and find that the defendants-appellees (the same ones in Tananta as here) may have been coy about the extent to which CSCS actually does business in the Netherlands Antilles. It also appears that officers of CSCS and officers of IRSI shared some responsibilities, and that CSCS, through IRSI, has some distant connection with Florida. Nevertheless, we believe each of these seamen should have had their individual cases dismissed. Our decision in Tananta rested on the principles set forth in Kinney, and was not bottomed on the less than candid affidavits supplied by CSCS.

It is apparent to us that CSCS is one in a structured maze of foreign corporations through which Costa Crociere does business. Indeed, we are free to order our private world as we see fit.⁴ However, CSCS not having a substantive operation in Curacao by no means makes Miami the central hub where these kind of crewmen suits should be tried. Appellants' highlighting of CSCS' apparently greater than thought relationship to this state only inures to make the exercise of jurisdiction more proper than not. Such perorating is pointless, however, when the case is dismissed for practical reasons of inconvenience, which is a very different consideration than a jurisdictional one.

For the purposes of this appeal, even assuming that CSCS' corporate...