McIntosh v. Royal Caribbean Cruises LTD.

Filing 92

ORDER Adopting 86 Report and Recommendation on Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Certificate of Appealability: No Ruling. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 3/18/2024. See attached document for full details. (bs00)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 1:17-CV-23575-GAYLES/TORRES
NIKKI MCINTOSH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.,
Defendant.
/
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’ Report
and Recommendation on Subject Matter Jurisdiction (“Report”). [ECF No. 86]. In its September 22,
2021 Order, the Court ordered the parties to file jurisdictional briefing as to whether the Court has
subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs filed their Memorandum on the Existence of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction on October 22, 2021. [ECF No. 66]. On November 22, 2021, Defendant filed its response.
[ECF No. 67]. Plaintiffs’ reply was filed on December 6, 2021. [ECF No. 68]. Subsequently, on
March 1, 2022, the Court referred the matter to Judge Torres to determine whether subject matter
jurisdiction existed. [ECF No. 72]. Judge Torres’ Report finds that (1) admiralty jurisdiction exists
over all parties in this case; (2) a third amended complaint must be filed that specified where each
Plaintiff is a citizen of to satisfy diversity jurisdiction; and (3) Class Action Fairness Act jurisdiction
does not exist. [ECF No. 86]. On September 14, 2023, Defendant filed its objections to the Report,
[ECF No. 87], and Plaintiffs filed their response on October 18, 2023, [ECF No. 90].
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which
1

objection is made are accorded de novo review if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings
that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific
objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint
Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc.,
208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
Defendant objects only to the portion of the Report that found that admiralty jurisdiction
exists. [ECF No. 87]. Defendant first argues that the parties’ cruise ticket contract does not provide
a basis for admiralty jurisdiction because Plaintiffs’ claims for negligence and negligent infliction
of emotional distress do not arise out of the ticket cruise contract. Next, Defendant contends that
Plaintiffs’ tort claims fail to satisfy the location prong of the “location/connection test” because
Defendant’s dealings with Plaintiffs did not occur on a ship on navigable waters.
This Court, having conducted a de novo review of the record, agrees with Judge Torres’
well-reasoned analysis and finds that admiralty jurisdiction exists. If not for the cruise ticket
contract creating privity between Plaintiffs and Defendant, Plaintiffs would not be able to assert
their current tort claims. Indeed, Defendant took a similar position in its initial Motion to Dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint. [ECF No. 35 at n.1] (in arguing for dismissal for failure to state
a claim for Counts I and II, [ECF No. 30], Defendant maintained that “[t]he Court may consider
the terms of the Ticket Contract in connection with this Motion because the authenticity of the
document is undisputed and the document is central to plaintiffs’ claims . . . .”) (emphasis
added). Additionally, Defendant’s instructions forcing Plaintiffs to arrive at a specific location
for embarkation satisfies the location prong of the “location/connection test”.
Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

2

(1)

Judge Torres’ Report and Recommendation on Subject Matter Jurisdiction, [ECF
No. 86], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by
reference;

(2)

Admiralty jurisdiction exists over all parties in this case;

(3)

Class Action Fairness Act jurisdiction does not exist; and

(4)

Plaintiffs may seek leave to file a third amended complaint that specifies where
each Plaintiff is a citizen of to satisfy diversity jurisdiction within twenty (20) days
of this Order.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 18th day of March, 2024.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3