McIntosh v. Royal Caribbean Cruises LTD., No. 1:2017cv23575 - Document 48 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER Denying 43 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Senior Judge James Lawrence King on 2/1/2019. See attached document for full details. (jw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
McIntosh v. Royal Caribbean Cruises LTD. Doc. 48 tJNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOU TH ERN D ISTR ICT O F FLORID A M IA M ID IVISION CASE N O.:17-cv-23575-KING-TORRES NIKKIM clntosh,on herown behalf and on behalfofa11othersimilarly situated passengersscheduled to havebeen aboard theM/V Ll pr/.poftheSeas, Plaintiffs, VS. RO YA L CA RIBBEAN CRUISES,LTD ., Defendant. / ORDER DENYING REPORT AND RECOM M ENDATIONS THIS CAUSE comesbeforetheCourtupon the January 4,2019 Reportand Recommendation(DE 43)ofMagistrateJudgeSimonton,recommendingthatDefendant's M otion to Dismissthe SecondAmended ComplaintbeDenied,orin the alternativethatthe Plaintiffsbeperm itted to fileaThird Amended Complaintthatspecifiesin separateparagraphs theinjuriessufferedbyeachPlaintiff.l Forthereasonsstatedherein,theCourtdeclinesto follow theReportandRecomm endations. 1. Backeround Thism atterarises from a cancelled cruise thatwassetto leave the PortofGalveston in Texas on August27,2017,which date coincided with Hurricane Harvey's landfallalong the G ulfCoastin eastern Texas. lTheDefendantGleditsObjections(DE 45)onJanuary 17,2019,towhichthePlaintiffsRespondedonJanuary31, 2019(DE47).TheCourtalsoconsideredoralargumentsfrom thepartiesatahearingheldonMonday,February 11,2019.Accordingly,thismatterisripeforruling. Dockets.Justia.com Thisaction w asinitiated by PlaintiffNikkiM clntosh as a class action. DefendantRoyal Caribbean moved to dism issthe class action allegationsbecause they were barred by the class action waivercontained in M s.M clntosh'scruise ticketcontractand moved to dism issthe three countsofthe complaintbecausethey failed to state a claim . The Courtgranted thatmotion and gavethe Plaintiffleave to file an Am ended Com plaint,which thePlaintifffiled on February 27, 2018(DE 25).Defendantagainmovedtodismisstheclassactionallegationsbecausethey were barred by the terms ofthe cruise ticketcontractaswellasthe negligence-based claim salleging thatthe Plaintiffhad again failed to cure theproblem that1ed to dism issalofthe originalaction (DE 26). Thatis,thePlaintiffdid notallege specific harmssuffered asaresultofDefendant's negligence. After review, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs class action allegations with prejudiceand grantedthePlaintiffleaveto tlleafurtheramended complaint,settingforth claips inthePlaintiff'sindividualcapacity(DE 29). OnM ay 24,2018,thePlaintifffiledherSecond AmendedComplaint(kûSAC'')(DE 35). Thatmotion wasreferred to JudgeSim onton on June27,2018, ThePlaintiff sSecond Am ended Complaintincluded 130 additionalPlaintiffswho wereatso scheduled to cruise aboard the same August27 ship as Plaintiff M clntosh. The SAC,like the plior two eomplaints,alleges that Defendant'sdecisionnottocancelthesubjectcruiseuntiltheday itwassetto sail,coupled with noticesDefendantissued in thedaysleading up to the cruise thatitwas stillon schedule,forced thousandsofpeople travelto the Houston area,placing them directly in the path ofthe storm . The SAC states that this forced would be-passengers to endure torrentialrains and dangerous hurricane conditions and thatthese would-be passengers,now stranded in and around Houston, suffered a long list of grievous injuries ranging from being injured on abouttheir bodity extremities, to eitemporary and/or permanent physical disability,'' to i'mental and emotional anguish''and Ssfeelingsofeconomicinsecurity.'' ThePlaintiffsallegethattheseinjurieswereal1caused by Defendant'sfailureto cancel the trip sooner, failure to warn of the dangers of traveling to a hurricane zone during an impending hurricane,and failure to prom ulgate refund policies aim ed atensuring the safety of passengers.According to the Plaintiffs,these actions were so outrageous as to am ountto an intentionalinfliction ofemotionaldistress, 'rheDefendantmovedto dismissthe SAC based on three reasons:1)the claimsofthe new Plaintiffs were required to be stricken or dism issed because their inclusion exceeded the limited leave to amend permitted by the Court;2)the claimswere barred by the termsofthe ticket contract,w hich gave Defendantthe ability to cancelthe cruise for a num ber of reasons, including adverseweatherconditions;and 3)the SAC failed to identify which ofthe supposed harmsbefelleach ofthe 131plaintiffs.On January 4,2018,Judge Simonton issued herRepàrt and Recommendations,which is the subjectofthisopinion. The R&R recommendsdenying Defendant's motion to dism iss and granting the Plaintiffsleave to am end theircomplaintfora third tim e. lI. LeaalStandard The R&R was issued by the M agistrate Judge under the authority of 28 U .S.C. 636(b)(1)(B)and (C). Assuch,the Courtisrequired to review de novo thoseportionsofthe R&R towhichRoyalCaribbeanobjects. 111. Discussion A . No FederalC ause of A ction Pled W ithout facts alleged dem onstrating any federal basis, it leave this court without jurisdiction to resolve any issue exceptto grantdismissal. The Courthas twice dismissed Plaintiffsstatedcausefordamagesordefendant'sallegednegligencecausingpersonalinjuryto Plaintiff. OncethisCourt'slackofjurisdictionisapparent,thefederalcourtshould declinetorule upon otherissues asserted by counsel(both plaintiff and defendant)however relevantthese mighthavebeen ifthecourthadjurisdiction. To do so violatesArticle1l1oftheUnited States Constitution holding federalcourts to be courts of limited jurisdiction. FederalCourts a?e prohibited from entering advisory opinions where they do nothave federaljurisdiction.See Golden v.Zwickler,394 U.S. 103,108 (1969) (di-f' he federalcourts established pursuant to Article lIlofthe Constitution do notrenderadvisory opinions.'');Owen EquipmentdrErectian Co.v.Kroger,437 U.S.365,372 (1978)(iig-l-jhejurisdictionofthefederalcourtsis limited nQt onlybytheprovisionsofArt.l1IoftheConstitution,butalsobyActsofCongress.'') The undersigned followed thisprincipalin two priorordersdismissing thiscase forlack offederaljurisdiction onFebruary 7,2018and April10,2018and did notaddressvariousother issuesthatthe U.S.M agistratedealtwith in herReportand Recomm endation.z B. A ggregation ofA m ount-in-controversy for Diversity Jurisdiction Although Plaintiffshave alleged completediversity to supportthis Court'sjurisdictioh, they have ignored the second requirement for diversity of citizenship of a $75,000 am ount-ilj- controversy.See28U.S.C.j 1332.IntheEleventh Circuit,the$75,000J'urisdictionalthreshold 2 JudgeSimontonrecognizedthatthisCoul'tdid notdealwiththese legalissues(ticketandarbitration), but' assumedtheorderofreferencefrom King toM agistrateJudgeSimontoncoveredthese issuesandwould behelpful toconsiderand m akearecom mendationtotheundersigned. may only be m etthrough aggregating claims ofm ultiple plaintiffs to enforce a single title or rightin which they have acomm on and undivided interest: ig-flhe Supreme courthas evinced a desire to give a strict construction to allegationsofthejurisdictionalamountin controversy,soasto allow aggregation only in those situations where there isnotonly a comm on fund from which the plaintiffsseekrelief,butwheretheplaintiffsalsohaveajointinterestinthatfund, such thatifplaintiffs'rights are notaffected by the rights ofco-plaintiffs,then there can be no aggregation ...In otherwords,the obligation to the plaintiffs mustbeajointone.' Morrison v.Allstate Indem.Ct?.,228 F.3d 1255,1262-63 (11th Cir.2000)(emphasisadded) (quoting EagleStarlns.Co.p.Maltes,313 F.2d 778,781(5th Cir.1963)(Tuttle,J.));accol-d Allapattah Servs.,Inc.v.Exxon Corp.,157F,Supp.2d 1291,1302-03(S.D.Fla.2001)(Go1d, (holding thatthere was no common fund supporting diversity jurisdiction in a breach of contractcase whereplaintiffseach had own contractwith defendantand there wasno res,ûtsuçh asapieceofland,an insurancepolicy,a lien,oran item ofcollateral''). Therefore,Plaintiffs herehave notalleged factsthattheiremotionaldistressdamagescould be aggregated to meetthe $75,000 threshold, Plaintiffshavealsonotallegedclassactionjurisdictionpursuantto28U.S.C.j1332(d). C . lm pactR ule under Florida Law Florida has long recognized an dtimpact rule,'' where ûtbefore a plaintiff can recovtr damages for emotional distress caused by the negligence of another,the em otional distress sufferedmustflow from physicalinjuriestheplaintiffsustained inan impact.''3 R.J v.Humana o.fFI a.,Inc.,652 So.2d 360,362(Fla.1995). TheFlorida SupremeCourthascarved outonly lim ited and t'narrow ''exceptions to this rule, based on kkkthe foreseeability and gravity of the emotionalinjury involved,and lack ofcountervailingpolicy concerns.''' Fla.Dep 'tt? . /'Corr.v. 3 The Florida Suprem e Court has also recognized, çtin certain situations, the manifestation of severe emotionaldistresssuchasphysicalinjuriesorillness''assatisfyingtheimpactrule.Fla.Dep ' tofcorr.v. Abril,969So.2d201,206(F1a,2007)(citingGraceyv.Eaker,837So.2d348,355(F1a.2002)). Abril,969So.2d201,206(F1a.2007)(quotingRowellv.Holt,850So.2d474,478(F1a.2003j). Thenarrow exceptionsinclude(1)intentionaltortssuch asdefamation,invasion ofprivacy,and intentionalintliction ofemotionaldistress,Abril,969 So.2d at206-07;(2)'ifreestanding torts'' such as wrongfulbirth,id at207;and (3)breach ofthe duty of confidentiality in certafn situations,Gracey v.Eaker,837 So.2d 348,357 (Fla.2002) (breach of confidentiality by psychotherapistwith fiduciary relationship to client);Abril,969 So.2d at 208 (breach bf confidentiality by laboratory orotherhealthcare providerregarding H1V testresults). Here, : Plaintiffsallege no physicalimpact,and none ofthe lim ited exceptionsare plausibly applicable to allegationsthatDefendantcanceled orrerouted acruise. M oreover,the Florida Third DistrictCourtof Appealexpressly distinguished Abrilby noting thatbreach ofconfidentiality isisthetypeoftol'tforwhich the only reasonably foreseeable dam agesare emotionaldistressdam agesr''in contrastto tortsfrom which econom icdamagesate reasonably foreseeable there,negligenthiring,negligentretention,and negligentsupervisionforwhich the impactrule isappropriate. G4S SecureSolutions USA,lnc.v.Golzar,208 So.3d 204,209 (Fla.3d Dist.Ct.App.2016). Here,economicdamagesfrom cancelingorreroutinga cruise are reasonably foreseeable,and any em otionaldistress dam ages are atbestindirect. Equally,Count11ofthe Second Amended Complaintfornegligentinfliction ofemotion>l distressisdeficientwhereidto maintain gsuchaclaimqin theabsenceofadirectimpact,g(1)jthe complained-ofmentaldistressmustbemanifested byphysicalinjury,g(2))theplaintiffmustbe involved in the accident by seeing,hearing,or arriving on the scene as the traum atizing event occurs,and ((3)jtheplaintiffmustsufferthecomplained-ofmentaldistressand accompanying physicalim pairm entwithin a shorttime ofthe incident.'' Tello v.RoyalCaribbean Cruises,Ltd., 939 F.Supp.2d 1269,1277 (S.D.Fla.2013)(Lenard,J.)(emphasisadded)(internalquotation marksomitted)(citing Willis p.GamiGolden Glades,LLC,967 So.2d 846,849 (F1a.2007) . Here,none of these criteria are alleged,nor do Plaintiffsallege any accidentcausing physical injury.Therefore,thisdoesnotfallwithin thebystanderexceptionto theimpactrulerecognized in Floridato bring anegligentintliction ofem otionaldistressclaim . lV . Conclusion Accordingly,itis ORDERED,ADJUDG ED,and DECREED thatDefendantROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.'s M otion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Am ended Com plaint (DE 35)be,andthe sameis,hereby GRANTED with prejudice,upon thegroundssetforth in theproceeding opinion wherein thecourtdeterminesthatitdoesnothavefederaljurisdictionto hearthiscase. ltisfurtherORDERED,ADJUDGED,andDECREED thatdefense'sobjection to the Report and Recommendations of the U .S. M agistrate Judge, is sustained in so far as the argumentsonjurisdictionareconcerned. DONE AND ORDERED in Cham bers at the James Lawrence King Federal Justice Building and United StatesCourthouse,M iami, Florida,this 1stday ofFebruary 2019. J M ES LA W REN CE K IN G ITED STA TES D ISTRICT JU D G Cc: A 1lcounselofrecord 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
