Court: District Court, S.D. Florida; March 16, 2017; Federal District Court
The Court granted Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.'s motion to dismiss a class action complaint filed by a passenger, who claimed to have suffered physical and emotional injuries during a February 2016 cruise on the Anthem of the Seas. The plaintiff sought to represent all similarly situated passengers and alleged negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiff's claims were governed by a ticket contract that included a class action waiver, explicitly stating that passengers could only bring claims on an individual basis and waiving the right to participate in class actions. The Court found the waiver enforceable and supported its decision with evidence from Royal Caribbean's Senior Manager of Guest Claims and Litigation. The dismissal was confirmed following oral arguments presented on March 2, 2017.
Ms. Campos' affidavit states that the ticket contract, including a class action waiver, was issued to the Plaintiff on January 11, 2016, and was accepted by him. The contract was publicly accessible on Royal Caribbean's website, and its terms were reasonably communicated to the Plaintiff, which he did not contest. Despite the clarity of the waiver, the Plaintiff filed a complaint to maintain a class action for passengers aboard the Anthem of the Seas.
The legal standard under Rule 8 requires a complaint to present a “short and plain statement” for relief, and to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, it must plead sufficient factual content for plausible claims. The enforceability of the class action waiver is to be determined at this stage. During a March 2, 2017 hearing, the Plaintiff agreed that the court should address the class action waiver at the motion to dismiss stage.
Royal Caribbean argues that the lawsuit cannot proceed as a class action due to the waiver and seeks dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages related to negligence. The Plaintiff argues that the waiver is void as against public policy under 46 U.S.C. § 30509 and is unconscionable.
Under general maritime law, applicable in this case, a cruise ticket's terms are enforceable if reasonably communicated. The law requires a two-pronged analysis: the clause's physical characteristics and whether the plaintiff could meaningfully understand the contract terms. Ms. Campos’ affidavit asserts that the ticket contract and waiver were indeed reasonably communicated to the Plaintiff before his cruise.
Parties can agree to class action waivers, as established in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion and Cruz v. Cingular Wireless, LLC. The evidence shows that the class action waiver was adequately communicated to the Plaintiff, making it enforceable. The waiver does not violate 46 U.S.C. 30509, which prohibits contract provisions limiting a shipowner's liability for personal injury or death due to negligence, or restricting a claimant’s right to trial. The Plaintiff argues that the waiver limits Royal Caribbean's liability and contravenes public policy, but the statute does not apply to waivers that allow for judicial resolution of claims, even if they may create some hardship for passengers. The Eleventh Circuit has only invalidated waivers that directly limit liability for negligent acts, as seen in cases like Johnson v. Royal Caribbean Cruises and Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines. The Supreme Court case Shute supports the enforceability of contractual clauses in cruise tickets, affirming that such clauses do not infringe upon the right to a trial by a competent court, even if they impose some inconvenience on passengers.
At least two courts in the District have upheld class action waivers in cruise ticket contracts, citing Shute’s analytical framework. In Lankford, passengers sought to represent a class due to a bacterial infection incident, arguing that the class action waiver violated section 30509 and public policy. The court rejected this argument, stating that the waiver did not prevent passengers from pursuing claims, and that limitations on class actions do not affect substantive liability, referencing the Rules Enabling Act and the Supreme Court case Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes.
Similarly, in Crusan, involving passengers affected by a fire on the Carnival Triumph, the court dismissed class action claims based on a waiver, stating it was procedural and did not limit the cruise line's liability. The court highlighted that the waiver did not infringe on the substantive rights of the parties involved.
This Court concurs with both Lankford and Crusan, asserting that the class action waiver, akin to a forum selection clause, does not strip plaintiffs of their right to a trial or limit the cruise line's liability for negligence. The argument that the waiver complicates claim assertions has been previously dismissed in Shute and related cases. Additionally, the waiver is found not to be unconscionable, citing that a court may refuse enforcement of unconscionable terms at the time the contract is made.
Unconscionability requires proof of both procedural and substantive elements to invalidate a contract. The burden lies with the party challenging the contract. The court found that the class action waiver in the ticket contract is neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable. Procedurally, the Supreme Court has upheld the enforceability of ticket contract provisions as long as they are reasonably communicated to passengers, regardless of claims of unequal bargaining power. The argument that the ticket is a "contract of adhesion" does not suffice to establish procedural unconscionability, especially since the plaintiff was adequately informed of the terms, including the waiver, prior to the cruise.
Substantively, class action waivers are generally enforceable and do not infringe upon the plaintiff's right to bring individual claims against Royal Caribbean, nor do they limit the cruise line's liability. The court also dismissed the notion that such waivers require an attorney's fees provision, emphasizing that state law precedents, like Dale v. Comcast Corp., are inapplicable as the case is governed by general maritime law, which lacks similar requirements.
The court noted that personal injury claims from cruise passengers rarely qualify for class treatment, referencing multiple cases where class certification was denied for various injuries sustained during cruises. Ultimately, the court deemed the class action waiver enforceable, granting Royal Caribbean's motion to dismiss the class action complaint. The plaintiff may submit an amended complaint within 20 days, limited to individual claims without class allegations. The order was issued from the James Lawrence King Federal Justice Building in Miami, Florida.
