Collins et al v. Carnival Corporation et al

Filing 15

ORDER AND REASONS granting 9 MOTION to Dismiss Case For Improper Venue filed by Angelia Diez, Carnival Corporation. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 2/21/13.(jjs, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

COLLINS, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 12-1622

CARNIVAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

SECTION: R(2)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss
plaintiffs’ complaint based on the forum selection clause in the
passenger ticket contract.1 The Court grants defendants’ motion
because plaintiffs failed to show that the forum selection clause
is unreasonable or was procured by fraud or overreaching.

I.

BACKGROUND
On April 6, 2011, plaintiffs purchased tickets for a five-

day Carribean cruise on the Carnival Triumph. The cruise was
scheduled to depart from New Orleans, Louisiana, on June 25,
2011. Plaintiffs allege that when they attempted to board the
ship, Carnival employees refused to allow plaintiff Sarah Collins
to board because she lacked proper identification. Plaintiffs
allege that Carnival employees detained them in the boarding area

1

R. Doc. 1.
1

for several hours and that they ultimately did not board the
ship.
Carnival’s passenger ticket contract contains a forum
selection clause stating that “all disputes and matters
whatsoever arising under, in connection with or incident to this
Contract or the Guest’s cruise, including travel to and from the
vessel, shall be litigated...before the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami, or...before
a court located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, U.S.A. to the
exclusion of the Courts of any other county, state or country.”
On June 24, 2011, plaintiffs acknowledged receipt of and accepted
all terms and conditions of their respective passenger contracts
electronically as a prerequisite for boarding.
On June 22, 2012, plaintiffs filed a complaint in this court
against Carnival for “[i]llegal detention and/or false
imprisonment of all plaintiffs; [d]amage of and failure to
immediately return plaintiffs’ luggage...; and [f]ailure to
timely make all insurance payments due and owing.”2 On October
29, 2012, Carnival moved to dismiss, contending that the forum
selection clause in plaintiffs’ tickets required them to bring
suit in a court in Miami-Dade County, Florida.3 Plaintiffs did
not respond to Carnival’s motion to dismiss.

2

Id. at 7.

3

R. Doc. 9.
2

II.

ANALYSIS
As this case involves a contract for the transportation of

passengers, it arises in admiralty and is governed by federal
maritime law. Archawski v. Hanioti, 350 U.S. 532, 533 (1956). In
maritime actions, forum selection clauses are prima facie valid
and should be enforced unless the resisting party demonstrates
“that enforcement would be unreasonable or unjust, or that the
clause [is] invalid for such reasons as fraud or overreaching.”
Int'l Software Sys., Inc. v. Amplicon, Inc., 77 F.3d 112, 114
(5th Cir. 1996) (quoting M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407
U.S. 1, 9-11 (1972)). In Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute,
the United States Supreme Court held that a forum selection
clause contained in a cruise ship ticket was enforceable. 499
U.S. 585 (1991). In that case, the cruise ship sailed from Los
Angeles, California, to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. One of the
plaintiffs was injured when the ship was in international waters
off the coast of Mexico. As here, the cruise ticket included a
forum selection clause requiring claims to be litigated before a
court in the State of Florida. The Shute plaintiffs sued Carnival
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington and argued that the forum selection clause was
unenforceable.

3

In enforcing the forum selection clause, the Supreme Court
relied on the lack of any indication that the choice of a Florida
venue was intended to discourage plaintiffs or other passengers
from pursuing a legitimate claim. The Court found the clause
reasonable based on the cruise line’s interest in limiting the
number of fora in which it may be subject to suit, the
desirability of minimizing the time and expense of pretrial
motions to determine where suit must be brought and defended, and
the passenger’s ability to obtain reduced fares by virtue of “the
savings the cruise line enjoys by limiting the fora in which it
may be sued.” Id. at 593-94. The Court further found that Florida
was not “a remote alien forum,” and that a dispute about an
accident off the coast of Mexico was not “an essentially local
one inherently more suited to resolution in the State of
Washington than in Florida.” Id. at 594 (internal quotations
omitted). The Court also noted that the plaintiffs had provided
no indication that Carnival secured their agreement to the forum
selection clause through fraud or overreaching, or that there was
a lack of notice. Id. at 595.
The same factors considered by the Supreme Court in Shute
render the forum selection clause enforceable in this case. The
plaintiffs have presented no argument that the clause is unfair,
that they lacked notice, or that they would be unduly burdened by
being forced to litigate their claims in Florida. Nor is there

4

any suggestion that Carnival secured their agreement to the forum
selection clause through fraud or overreaching. Because
plaintiffs have not met their heavy burden of proof, the Court
finds the forum selection clause enforceable, and it must dismiss
plaintiffs’ case. Id. at 592 (“even where the forum clause
establishes a remote forum for resolution of conflicts, ‘the
party claiming [unfairness] should bear a heavy burden of
proof.’”)(quoting M/S Bremen, 407 U.S. at 17).

III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

21st

New Orleans, Louisiana, this

day of February, 2013

SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5