Csepi et al v. Carnival PLC et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against Carnival Corporation, Carnival PLC, Costa Crociere, S.P.A. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 465407003228)Document filed by Erszebet Szilagyi, Adam Csepi, Joszef Balogh, Jeno Csanja.(mro)

LINITEDSTATES
DISTRICTCOI'RT.''''
SOUT}IERN
DISTRICTOFNEW YORK
CASEN
ADAM CSEPI,
JENOCSANJA-JOSZEFBAI,OGH-@11

w

n
ry

COMPLAINT AND JURY
'
DEMAND.

CARNTVAL
PLC,CARMV;

CoRPoRATION,

COSTACROCIERE.
S.P.A..
Defendants.

JLII05SIJL!-!','AN

Plaintitrs, by their attomeys, RONAI & RONAI, L.L.P., as and for their Complaint,
respectfullyallege,upon information andbelief:
I. NATURE OF TIIE CASE
1.This is anactionfor injuries sustained theplaintiffs asa resultofthe negligence
by
ofthe
defendants
hereinon January13,2012.
TI. JITRISDICTION AND VENTIE
2. Jurisdiction predicated
is
upon28 U.S.C.sections
1332(a)(2)and 1333.
3. Theamount controversy
exclusive
ofcosts.
in
hereinexceeds
$75,000.00.,
4. Venue lies in the SouthemDishict of New York in that defendantCARNTVAL PLC
maintainsa principal place of business
within the SouthemDistrict of New York.

III. TIIE PARTIES
5. At all times mentionedherein. Plaintiffs were and still are citizens and residentsof
Hungary.

6. At all times herein mentioned,the defendant,CARNIVAL PLC, was and still is a
foreign corporatibn, created, oiganized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of
in
and
England-Wales is licensedto do business the Stateof New York.

.': ---.er*iti*.r,i"r"i";a*;.a;A;

was
CoRPoRAnoN, and
a"fendant,
CARNNAL

still is a foreign corporation,created,organizedand existing under and by virtue of the laws of
in
Panama is licensedto db business the Stateof New York.
and
COSTA CROCIERE,S.p.A.wasandstill
the
8. At all times hereinmentioned, defendant,
and
is a foreign corporation,created,organized existingunderandby virtue of the laws of ltaly.

W. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
and
carryingover4,000passengers
13,2012,the
CostaConcordia,
9. On or aboutJanuary
crew, skuck a rock offshore Isola del Giglio, Grosseto,Italy, which tore a hole in its hull and
to
which then allowed water in causingsignificantdamage the vessel,andultimately causingit to
capsize.
delayed orderto abandon
the
Schettino,
10.The captaino fthe CostaConcordia,Fmncesco
ship andto deploythe lifeboats.
more wereinjured in the saidallision and
11. Approximately35 peopledied andhundreds
its aftermath.
12.Saidallision resultedfrom the intentional,negligentand/orrecklessact of the captain
to
of theCostaConcordia,ln an attempt salutethe peopleof Isola del Giglio, aswell asthe failure
CARNIVAL PLC andCOSTACROCIERE,
CARNIVAL CORPORATION,
of Defendants
and
systems controls'
propertraining,safety
management
to
S.P.A., implement

afterthe allisionled to further lossof life andinjury and
13.Further,the chaosthat ensued
wasthe direct result of Defendants
CARNIVAL CORPORATION,CARNIVAL PtC and
,-- COSTA{ROCIERE, S.P.A's faihne.tocrcateandimplementa properplan for the safetyand
evacuation thoseonboard.
of
14.Defendants
CARNWAL CORPORATION,
CARNIVAL PLC andCOSTA
for
CROCIERE,S.P.A.,wereresporisible preparing,instituting andmaintainingsafetyprograms
. for all companies vessels
and
undertheir control,includingthe CostaConcordia,andfor ensuring
that the crew of the CostaConcordiawas faniliar with the safetyprogramsandweretrainedto
followthem.
Defendants
CARNIVAL PLC and COSTA
15. Further,
CARNTVALCORPORATION,
for
CROCIERE,S.P.A., were ultimately responsible ensuringthat the crew of Ihe Costa
applying those
Concordiaadheredto the safety programsand followed them in an emergency,
programsand their training to evacuatethose aboardthe Costa Concordia safely, and without
injury.
CARNTVALCORPORATION.
CARNWAL PLC andCOSTA
16.Defendants
and
laws andregulations
undergoveming
S.P.A.,
failedto fulfill their responsibiiity
CROCIERE,
were injured and/orlost their lives.
asa resultmanypeopleunnecessarily
gross
acts
hereinis beingsuedfor its independent ofnegligence,
17.Eachdefendant
wantondisregardand other wrongdoing,all of which contributedto the Cost4
negligence,
Concordiatragedyandthe injuries or deathsofthose individualsaboard,including the plaintiffs
herein.

ENTERPSISE
V. ALTEREGO / SINGLE BUSINESS
J

'

"',-ls.Thefoiegoingpara$aphsriieiepeatedandre-allegedasiffirllysetforthherein.
a
completed dual
plc
Camival andCamivalCorporation
19.O; Atdl 17,2003,Defendants

structuxe
in-which Carnival
a
"'-'listed.company (lDl,c':;n-rnauah'oF;which implemented eorporate
' ir'rof
Dlcownsandtlaims the assets Camival Comoration.
20. DefendantCamival plc claims a portfolio of cruisebrandsin North America,Europe,
Cruises,
Asia, including Camival CruiseLines, Holland ArnericaLine, Princess
Australia,and
AIDA Cruises,CostaCruises,Cunard,Ibero Cruises,P&O Cruises(Australia)and
Seaboum,
brands
that
(IK). In its 201I arxrual
report,Carnivalplc represents "[t]ogether,these
P&O Cruises
to
operate shipstotaling 196,000lower berthswith 10new shipsscheduled enterservice
99
between
May 2072andMarch2016."
itselfto thepublic,Camivalplc andCamivalCorporation
21.In short,whenit represents
operating
and
carryingcapacity,employees vessels
income,eamings,assets,
claim the revenues,
ascamival cruise Lines. costa crociere,s.P.A.,is thealteregoof camival plc andcamival
as
Corporation, more fully and specifrcallystatedherein.
S'P.A.,
have
and
Camivalplc, CamivalCorporation CostaCrociere,
22.Defendants
officers and directors.
commonowners,
revenues,
23. WhenCamival ptc and Camival Corporationaccountfor their assets,
it
and
passenger
carrying capacity, vessels, doesnot excludethe CostaConcordia,andsocounts
as
thatvessel oneof its own assets.
one
includethe CostaConcordiaas of
Camivalplc andCamivalCorporation
24.Because
its
of
for
its vessels purposes aggregating own worth andfinancial condition andabilitiesto the
be
should
S.P.A.,
and
public,theform of Camivalplc, CarnivalCorporation CostaCrociere,
to
The
disregarded. failure to do so would allow the corporations be usedto perpetrate

- . ftaud on Plaintiffs and others,in tlrat Carnivalplc and CarnivalCorporationcanclaim the Costa
Concordiaas part of its holdingson onehand,but then avoid responsibilityfor that vesselon the
other.
-.- TheentitiesCamival CamivalCorporation Costa
25,
plc,
and
Crociere,
S.P.Acommingled
assets,
formally commingledtheir identities,andappear be non-distinct.
to
26. For the foregoingreasons,
amongmanyothers,Camival plc, Camival Corporation
and
CostaCrociere,S.P.Aare alter ego corporations
which arenot entitledto maintainthe fiction of
their separate
existence.

VI. CAUSESO['ACTION ON BEIIALF OF'ADAM CSEPI'
Negligence
27. The foregoingparagaphsarerepeated re-alleged if fully setforth herein.
and
as
28. Defendants
hereinareliable for injuriessustained plaintiffADAM CSEPIby reason
by
of their negligence failing to prepareandmaintainsafetyprogramsfor all companies
in
and
vessels
undertheir control.Defendants
wereultimately
responsible establishing, ensu.nng
for
and
that the crewof the CostaConcordiawasfamiliar with the safetyprogramsandthat they were
properlytrainedto follow them.
29. Most importantly,Defendants
wereultimately responsible ensuringthatthe crewof
for
the CostaConcordiaadheredtothe safetyprograms followed them in an emergency,
and
applying
tlroseprograms their training to evacuate
and
thoseonboardthe CostaConcordiasafely,and
without injury.
30.The actsofthe Defendants
hereinconstituted
negligence,
which wasa proximatecause
of the injuries anddamages
sufferedby plaintiffADAM CSEPIherein.

'fi .

'. ..: _rr:

.:::. -

. GrossNegligence.': . .' ' .:: . ,rr.. :,:

encountered
by
of
31. The Conclition the CosldConcordia andherappufteixuces
plaintiffADAM CSEPIexposed to extreme
him
hzards. By allowing, requiring,or condonhgthe
the
as
of
to
socalledcaptain theCostaConcordia maneuver vessel hedid, andto allow
poortraining,andlax or deficient
praclices,
to exis! or fail to corect, the deplorable
safety
procedures
were on notice ofthe
onboardthe CostaConcordia,Defendants
evacrultion
ignoredthesemaneuvers,
and
Defendants
dangerous
condition onboardthe vessel.
Nonetheless,
plaintiff ADAM CSEPIto
poor, lax or deficientprocedures
onboaxd, exposed
and
the deplorable,
oftheir actions.
theconsequences
proceeded
indifferencethat their failure to
32. Defendants
with knowledgeor conscious
undertheir control, andtheir
prepare maintainsafetyprogramsfor all companies vessels
and
and
to
failure to ensurethe crew ofthe CostaConcordiaadhered the safetyprogramsandfollowed
thoseonboardthe
applyingthoseprograms their haining to evacuate
and
themin an emergency,
CostaConcordiasafely,would result in injury to thoseonboardthe vessel,including plaintiff
a
ADAM CSEPI.Despitethat knowledge,aadthe understanding high likelihood existedthat
proceeded disregard,
in
and
injury would result ftom their actsor failuresto act, Defendants
plaintiff ADAM CSEPIto the dangerous
conditionswhich resultedfrom theseactsand
subjected
failuresto act.

VII. CAUSESOX'ACTION ON BEHALF OX'JENO CSANJA
Negligence
and
are
33. The foregoingparagraphs repeated re-allegedasif firlly setforth herein.

by
34. Defendants
hereinareliable'forjnjuries sustained plaintiff JENO CSANJA by
and
and
reason
oftheir negligence failing to prepare maintainsafetyprogramsfor all companies
in
and
for
undertheir control. Defendants
wereultimateiyresponsible establishing, ensuring
vessels
''=--thatthecrewoftheCostaConcordiawasfamiliarwiththesafetyprogramsandthattheywere
properlytrainedto follow them.
for
wereultimatelyresponsible ensuringthat the crew of
35. Most importantly,Defendants
applying
theCostaConcordia adhercd thesafetyprograms followed themin an emergency,
to
and
the
thoseprograms their training to evacuate
and
thoseaboard CostaConcordiasafely,and
without injury.
negligence,
which wasa proximatecause
hereinconstituted
36. The actsofthe Defendants
sufferedby plaintiff JENOCSANJA herein.
of the injwies anddamages
GrossNegligence
encormtered
by
37. The conditionof the CostaConcordia andher appurtenances
By
him to extremehazards. atlowing, requiring, or condoning
PlaintiffJENO CSANJA exposed
the
the so calledcaptainof the CostaConcordiato maneuver vesselashe did, andto allow
poor training, and lax or deficient
to exist, or fail to correct,the deplorablesafetypractices,
were on notice ofthe
procedures
onboardthe CostaConcordia,Defendanls
evacuation
and
ignoredthesemaneuvers,
Defendants
Nonetheless,
dangerous
condition onboardthe vessel.
plaintiff JENOCSANJAto
and
poor, lax or deficientprocedures
onboard, exposed
the deplorable,
the consequences their actions.
of
proceeded
indifferencethat their failure to
with knowledgeor conscious
38. Defendants
undertheir control, andtheir
and
prepare maintain safetyprogramsfor all companies vessels
and

the
the
failure to ensure crew of the CostaConcordia adheredto safetyprogramsandfollowed
the
thoseonboard
applyingthoseprogtamsandtheir haining to evacuate
themin an emergency,
CostaConcordiasafely,would result in iqjwy to thoseonboardthe vessel,including plaintiff
- , . , . JENO CSANJA.Despitethat.knowledge,. the understanding high likolhood existedthat
a
and
proceeded disregard,
and
in
injury would result from their actsor failuresto act, Defendants
conditionswhich resultedfrom theseactsand
plaintiffJENo CSANJA to the dangerous
subjected
ra uresro acr.

VIII. CAUSESOF ACTION ON BEHALF OF JOSZEF BALOGH
Negligence
as
are
and
39. The foregoingparagraphs repeated re-alleged if fully setforth herein.
by
hereinare liable for injuries sustained plaintiff JOSZEFBALOGH by
40. Defendants
and
and
in
oftheir negligence failing to prepare maintainsafetyprogramsfor all companies
reason
for
wereultimately responsible establishilg, andersuring
undertheir control. Defendants
vessels
that the crewof the CostaConbordiawas familiar with the safetyprogramsandthat they were
properlyhainedto follow them.
for
wereultimatelyresponsible ensuringthatthe crewof
41. Most importantly,Defendants
applying
and
thecosta concordia adheredtothesafetyprograms followed themin an emergency,
the
thoseaboard costa concordia safely,and
and
thoseprograms their training to evacuate
without injury.
which was a proximatecause
negligence,
hereinconstituted
42. The actsof the Defendants
by
suffered plaintiffJoszEF BALOGH herein'
of the injuriesanddamages

Gross
Negligence
by
encountered
43. The condition of the CostaConcordia andherappurtenances
or
By
hazards. allowing,requidng,
him
BALOGH exposed to extreme
PlaintiffJOSZEF
as
to
of
the
condoning so calledcaptain theCostaConcordia manerer thevessel he did, andto
safetypfactices,poor trainiag, andlax or deficient
allow to exist, or fail to correct,the deplorable
were on notice of the
procedures
onboardthe CostaConcordia,Defendants
evacuation
and
ignoredtlese maneuvers,
Defendants
Nonetheless,
conditiononboardthe vessel.
dangerous
plaintiffJOSZEF
procedures
and
poor,lax or deficient
onboard, exposed
the deplorable,
of
BALOGHto the consequences their actions.
indifferencethat their failwe to
proceeded
with knowledgeor conscious
44. Defendants
undertheir conhol, andtheir
and
prepare maintainsafetyprogramsfor all companies vessels
and
to
the
failure to ensure ctew of tlLeCostaConcordia adhered the safetyprogramsandfollowed
the
those
onboard
and
applyingthoseprogmms theirtrainingto evacuate
themin anemergency,
CostaConcordiasafely,would result in injury to thoseonboardthe vessel,includingplaintiff
that
a
and
that knowledge, theunderstandinghigh likelihoodexisted
BALOGH.Despite
JOSZEF
and
proceeded disregard,
in
to
injury wouldresultfrom their actsor failures act,Defendants
conditionswhich resultedftom theseacts
plaintiff JOSZEFBALOGH to the dangerous
subjected
andfailuresto act.

IX. CAUSESOF ACTION ON BEHALF OF'ERSZEBET SZILAGYI
Negligence
as
paragraphs repeated re-alleged if fully setforth herein.
and
are
45.Theforegoing

46. Defendants
hereinareliable for injuries sustained plaintiff ERSZEBETSZILAGYI
by
by reason their negligence failing to prepare maintainsafetypro$ams for all companies
of
in
and
andvessels
undertheir control. Defendants
for
and
were ultimately responsible establishing,
ensuring the crew of the CoslaConcordiawasfarniliarwith, the safetyprograms thatthey
that
and
wereproperlyhainedto follow them.
47. Most importantly,Defendants
wereultimately responsible ensuringthatthe crew of
for
applying
theCostaConcordia adheredtothesafetyprograms followed themin anemergency,
and
thoseprogramsandtheir training to evacuate
thoseaboardthe CostaConcordiasafely,and
without injury.
whichwasa proximate
cause
48.Theactsofthe Defendants
hereinconstituted
negligence,
of the injuries anddamages
sufferedby plaintiff ERSZEBETSZILAGYI herein.

GrossNegligence
encountered
by
49. The condition of the CoslaConcordia andherappurtenancas
or
By
SZILAGYI exposed to exheme
her
hazards. allowing,requiring,
PlaintiffERSZEBET
the
condoning so calied gaptgir1 lhe CostaConcordiato maneuver vesselashe did, andto
tlre
of
practices,
poortraining,andlax or deficient
the
safety
allow to exist,or fail to correct, deplorable
wereon noticeofthe
procedures
onboard CostaConcordia,
the
Defendants
evacuation
and
ignored
these
maneuvets,
Defendants
conditiononboard vessel.
the
Nonetheless,
dangerous
plaintiff ERSZEBET
procedures
and
poor,lax or deficient
onboard, exposed
the deplorable,
of
SZILAGYI to the consequences their actions.
proceeded
indifferencethat their failure to
50. Defendants
with knowledgeor conscious
and
undertheir control, andtheir
prepare maintain safetyprogramsfor all companies vessels
and

t0

i

failure to ensure crew of theCostaConcordia adhercd the safetyprogramsandfollowed
tle
to
tlem in an emergency,
applyingthoseprogramsandtheir training to evacuate
thoseonboard
the
CostaConcordiasafely,would result in injury to thoseonboardthe vessel,including plaintiff
ERSZEBETSZILAGYI. Despitethat knowledge,andthe understanding high likelihood existed
a
that injury would result from their actsor failuresto act,Defendants
proceeded disregard,
in
and
subjectedplaintiff ERSZEBETSZILAGYI to the dangerous
conditionswhich resultedfrom these
actsandfailuresto act.

x._DA!44GE!
51. The foregoingparagraphs repeated re-allegedasif fi-rlly set forth herein.
are
and
52. As a direct andproximateresult of Defendarts' conduct,including negligence
and
grossnegligence,
eachand everyplaintiff hereinsuffered,or is entitledto claim, the following
injuries andresultantdamages,
including, but not limited to:
a. physicalinjuries, pain and suffering;
b. mentalanguish psychological
pain ancl
and
injuries,
suffering;
c. pastaadfuture lossof eamings;
d. punitive andmoral damages;
e. all suchotherandfurther damages allowedby law, including but not limited to
as
attomeys andcosts.
fees

XI, DEMANDFORJURYTRIAL
53.Plaintifls
demandtrialbyjury for thisaction.
a

11

I
XII..BBAXERFSIRRELIEE
judgment againstDefendantsfor his
WHEREFORE,plaintiff ADAM CSEPI demands
causes actionin theamount FIFTY MILLION ($50,000,000.00)
of
of
DOLLARS;plaintiffJENo
judgment againstDefendants his causes action in the amowrtof FIFTY
CSANJA demands
for
of
judgment
MILLION ($50,000,000.00)
DOLLARS;plaintiffJOSZEF
BALOGH demands
against
Defendants his causesof action in the amountof FIFTY MILLION ($50,000,000.00)
for
judgment against Defendantsfor her
DOLLARS; plaintiff ERSZEBET SZILAGYI demands
causes actionin the amountof FIFTY MILLION ($50,000,000.00)
of
DOLLARS; andfor such
just
otherandfurtherrelief as this Court deems andproper.
Dated:PortChester,
New York
Mav 7.2072

By:

Ronai(IIO 3923)
PeterRonai @R 3228)

RONAI & RONAI, L.L.P,
Attomeys for Plaintiffs
TheRonaiBuilding
34 AdeeStreet
PortChester,
New York 10573
[phone]

t2

TINITED
STATES
DISTRICTCOURT
SOUTHERN
DISTRICT NEW YORK
OF
ADAM CSEPI,JENO CSANJA, JOSZEFBALOGH
ANdERSZEBET
SZILAGYI,

Case
No:

-against-

CARNTVAL
CORPORATION,
CARNIVAL PLC,
COSTACROCIERE,
S.P,A.,
Defendants.

COMPLAINT AI{D JURY DEMAI\D

RONAI & RONAI, L.L.P.
Attomeys for Plaintiffs
TheRonaiBuilding
34 Adee Stoeet
PortChester,
New York 10573
9t4-824-4777