Turner v. Costa Crociere S.P.A.

• Decision Date: 09 September 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:20-cv-21481-KMM
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
• Parties: Paul TURNER, Plaintiff, v. COSTA CROCIERE S.P.A., and Costa Cruise Lines Inc., Defendants.

488 F.Supp.3d 1240

Paul TURNER, Plaintiff,

v.COSTA CROCIERE S.P.A., and Costa Cruise Lines Inc., Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-21481-KMM

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

Signed September 9, 2020

Entered September 10, 2020

Daniel Wayne Grammes, Jason Robert Margulies, Marc E. Weiner, Andrew Scott Freedman, Michael A. Winkleman, Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina, and Winkleman, P.A., Miami, FL, for Plaintiff.

Catherine J. MacIvor, Jeffrey Eric Foreman, Foreman Friedman, PA, Miami, FL, for Defendants.

ORDER

K. MICHAEL MOORE, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendants Costa Crociere S.P.A. ("Costa Crociere") and Costa Cruise Lines Inc.’s ("CCL") (collectively, "Defendants") Motion to Dismiss. ("Mot.") (ECF No. 19). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. ("Resp.") (ECF No. 46). Defendants filed a reply. ("Reply") (ECF No. 56). The Motion is now ripe for review.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff's claims arise from a COVID-19 outbreak on the Costa Luminosa, a cruise ship in which Plaintiff was a passenger. See generally ("Compl.") (ECF No. 1). Defendants are the operators of the Costa Luminosa. Id. ¶ 9. Costa Crociere is headquartered in Genoa, Italy. Id. ¶ 2. CCL, a subsidiary of Costa Crociere, is headquartered in Pembroke Pines, Florida. Id. ¶ 3.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ negligence resulted in an outbreak of COVID-19 on the cruise ship. See id. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to warn passengers of the dangers of COVID-19 prior to the voyage. See id. In the Complaint, Plaintiff brings claims for (1) negligence, (2) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4) misleading advertising, and (5) negligent misrepresentation. See id. ¶¶ 57–90.

Passengers’ tickets for the Costa Luminosa include terms and conditions to which passengers agree by purchasing or using the ticket. ("Passage Ticket Contract" or "Contract") (ECF No. 17–10). Notably, the Passage Ticket Contract includes a forum-selection clause that requires all litigation be brought in Genoa, Italy. Id. § 2(a) ("Any claim, controversy, dispute, suit, or matter of any kind whatsoever arising out of, concerned with, or incident to any Cruise or in connection with this Contract shall be instituted only in the courts of Genoa, Italy, to the exclusion of the courts of any other country, state, or nation."). Additionally, the Passage Ticket Contract provides that Italian law will apply to any dispute between passengers and the cruise line. Id.

Now, Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. See generally Mot.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

"[T]he appropriate way to enforce a forum-selection clause pointing to a state or foreign forum is through the doctrine of forum non conveniens. " Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Tex. , 571 U.S. 49, 60, 134 S.Ct. 568, 187 L.Ed.2d 487 (2013). Ordinarily, to obtain dismissal based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens , a movant must demonstrate that "(1) an adequate alternative forum is available, (2) the public and private factors weigh in favor of dismissal, and (3) the plaintiff can reinstate his suit in the alternative forum without undue inconvenience or prejudice." GDG Acquisitions, LLC v. Gov't of Belize , 749 F.3d 1024, 1028 (11th Cir. 2014).

"The calculus changes, however, when the parties’ contract contains a valid forum-selection clause." Atl. Marine , 571 U.S. at 63, 134 S.Ct. 568. Notably, the existence of a valid forum-selection clause governing the claims at issue shifts the burden from the party seeking dismissal to the non-movant to establish that dismissal is improper. See id. Moreover, courts must give no deference to the plaintiff's choice of forum and may only consider the public interest factors. See id. Accordingly, courts "must deem the private-interest factors to weigh entirely in favor of the preselected forum." Id.

When ruling on a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens , a court may "consider matters outside the pleadings if presented in proper form by the parties."

MGC Commc'ns, Inc. v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc. , 146 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1349 (S.D. Fla. 2001). Additionally, in considering a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens , a court must accept the facts in the plaintiff's complaint as true, "to the extent they are uncontroverted by the defendants’ affidavits." S & Davis Int'l, Inc. v. Republic of Yemen , 218 F.3d 1292, 1303 (11th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). "When affidavits conflict, the court is inclined to give greater weight to the plaintiff's version of the ... facts and to construe such facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Home Ins. Co. v. Thomas Indus., Inc. , 896 F.2d 1352, 1355 (11th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants argue that the Court should (1) enforce the Parties’ forum-selection clause, and (2) dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. See generally Mot. In response, Plaintiff argues the Court should not enforce the forum-selection clause because (1) some of Plaintiff's claims fall outside the scope of the forum-selection clause, and (2) the forum-selection clause is invalid and unenforceable. Resp. at 6–11. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that the doctrine of forum non conveniens does not require dismissal. Id. at 11–18. First, the Court will address whether all of Plaintiff's claims fall within the scope of the forum-selection clause. Second, the Court will determine whether the forum-selection clause is valid and enforceable. Third, the Court will consider whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens dictates that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint.

1. Scope of Forum-selection Clause

First, Defendants argue that the forum-selection clause is broadly written to include all of Plaintiff's claims. Mot. at 10. In response, Plaintiff argues that some of his claims fall outside the scope of the forum-selection clause because the Passage Ticket Contract is only valid for the specified sailing dates. Resp. at 7. Specifically, Plaintiff cites to § 10(a), which provides that the Contract "is valid only for the Vessel, the accommodations, and the sailing dates specified" in the Contract. Passage Ticket Contract § 10(a). Additionally, Plaintiff refers to the definitions section, which defines "Guest" as "any person traveling hereunder." Id. Therefore, Plaintiff argues, his claim based on Defendants’ failure to warn the passengers about the dangers of COVID-19 is outside the scope of the forum-selection clause because the underlying events occurred prior to the specified sailing dates. Resp. at 7. In reply, Defendants argue that Plaintiff misconstrues the limitation of a passengers’ use of the Contract as a ticket for the specified dates as a limitation on the validity of the Contract. Reply at 11.

"In any case involving a forum-selection clause, the court must determine the scope of the clause and whether it covers the particular claims asserted." Landau v. Jaffa , No. 18-60772-CIV, 2018 WL 4778426, at *4–5 (S.D. Fla. July 19, 2018) (citation omitted). To determine whether the claim or relationship at issue falls within the scope of a forum-selection clause, courts must look to the language of the clause itself. See Bahamas Sales Assoc. v. Byers , 701 F.3d 1335, 1340 (11th Cir. 2012). Additionally, general contract principles apply to courts determination of the scope of forum-selection clauses. See Slater v. Energy Servs. Grp. Int'l, Inc. , 634 F.3d 1326, 1330 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Belize Telecom, Ltd. v. Gov't of Belize , 528 F.3d 1298, 1307 & n.11 (11th Cir. 2008) ). And, "[u]nder general contract principles, the plain meaning of a contract's language governs its interpretation." Id.

Here, all of Plaintiff's claims fall within the scope of the forum-selection clause. To interpret the scope of the forum-selection clause, the Court first looks to the forum-selection clause itself. See Byers , 701 F.3d at 1340 (noting courts first look to the forum-selection clause itself to determine its scope). The forum-selection requires that "[a]ny claim ... of any kind whatsoever arising out of, concerned with, or incident to any Cruise or in connection with this Contract shall be instituted only in the courts of Genoa, Italy[.]" Passage Ticket Contract § 2(a).

Notably, the Eleventh Circuit interpreted a similar clause, which provided that "any ‘case or controversy arising under or in connection with this Agreement[,]’ " to include "all causes of action arising directly or indirectly from the business relationship evidenced by the contract." Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp. , 810 F.2d 1066, 1070 (11th Cir. 1987), aff'd , 487 U.S. 22, 108 S.Ct. 2239, 101 L.Ed.2d 22 (1988). Thus, the plain meaning of the forum-selection clause denotes that it applies to all claims that arise out of the relationship between the Parties–that of cruise line operator and cruise line passenger. Id.

Moreover, Plaintiff's proposed construction is unreasonable because it views certain sections in isolation from the forum-selection clause and the remainder of the Contract. See O'Brien v. Miller , 168 U.S. 287, 297, 18 S.Ct. 140, 42 L.Ed. 469 (1897) (citation omitted) ("The elementary canon of interpretation is, not that particular words may be isolatedly considered, but that the whole contract must be brought into view and interpreted with reference to the nature of the obligations between the parties, and the intention which they have manifested in forming them."). Notably, Plaintiff disregards a section of the Contract that necessarily only applies prior to the ship's voyage–the cancellation policy. See Passage Ticket Contract § 11. Specifically, the Contract provides what percentage of the fare will be refunded to the passenger depending on how many days before departure the passenger cancels their reservation. Id. Therefore, it is plainly apparent...