Cheap International Airline - Where Do I File My Cruise Line Accident Case - Can I Sue in a State Other Than My Passenger Ticket?

In this article we discuss the issue of can I file a cruise ship case in a state other than the one on my passage contract? California, while Princess Cruises try and keep lawsuits against them in Los Angeles, carnival Cruise Lines tries to keep lawsuits against them in Florida. Or forum selection clause, cruise lines attempt to have the legal actions against them heard in one state by a venue, in most instances. One factor is the passage contract itself and another factor is admiralty maritime law. Where do I file my cruise line accident case and can I sue somewhere else than my passenger ticket depends upon many factors.

To familiarize yourself with the legal principles contained herein, but invite you to read this legal research, you are encouraged to hire an experienced cruise line lawsuit lawyer to explore in more detail your case. But instead as an educational resource under the fair use doctrine, the following laws applied and we make no representations that this will be the law at the time of the reading of this article and this is not to be construed as legal advice, as of the writing of this article.

LAW ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS

113 L.Ed.2d 622 (1991), 1528, 1522. 111 S.Ct, 585. 499 U.S, shute. V. Inc, " Carnival Cruise Lines. The forum-selection clause must be "fundamentally fair, second. 1364 (9th Cir.1987), 816 F.2d 1360, . Inc, american Airlines. Deiro v. The terms of the contract must be "reasonably communicated" to the passenger, first. Federal maritime law applies a two-prong test to determine the enforceability of a forum-selection clause. If you prefer, or inconvenient forum, is to argue forum non conveniens, as opposed to Florida, in effect keeping a Carnival Cruise Ship lawsuit in California, one of the best arguments in voiding a forum selection clause. Can I sue in a state other than on my passenger ticket?

722 F.2d at 866) at 1364 (citing Shankles, " Id. But also of any extrinsic factors indicating the passenger's ability to become meaningfully informed of the contractual terms at stake, with an examination not only of the ticket itself, "the proper test of reasonable notice is an analysis of the overall circumstances on a case-by-case basis.

A court may refuse to enforce forum-selection clause for any of three reasons: 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972)), 1907. 92 S.Ct, 12, 1. 407 U.S, . Zapata Off-Shore Co. At 1231 (quoting The Bremen v. " Id. Forum-selection clauses are presumptively valid and should be honored "absent some compelling and countervailing reason. 863-64 (1st Cir.1983)), 722 F.2d 861, . S.P.A, costa Armatori. 1364 (9th Cir.1987) (quoting Shankles v, 816 F.2d 1360, . Inc, american Airlines. Deiro v. A passenger of a common carrier is contractually bound by the fine print of passenger ticket if the contract "reasonably communicate[s]" the existence of terms and conditions that affect legal rights.

) 349 F.3d at 1231-32, " (Murphy. And (3) "if enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which suit is brought; (2) "if the party wishing to repudiate the clause would effectively be deprived of his day in court were the clause enforced"; (1) "if the inclusion of the clause in the agreement was the product of fraud or overreaching".

At 593-94. Id. The time and expense of lengthy disputes regarding what forum is proper, and courts, can spare the litigants, by establishing beforehand the proper location of the suit, the forum-selection clause, additionally. Id. Which could subject the cruise line to litigation in several different fora, a cruise ship can carry passengers who reside in a variety of locations. At 593. 499 U.S, shute. A cruise line has a "special interest" in controlling the fora in which claims against it can be litigated, and the Supreme Court has noted.

At 595. " Id. Here there appears to be "no indication that [Carnival] set Florida as the forum in which disputes were to be resolved as a means of discouraging cruise passengers from pursuing legitimate claims, as in Shute. Carnival also has a good reason for requiring litigation in Florida: this is where its principal place of business is located. At 594. Id. These economies in litigation can benefit passengers in the form of lower fares.

Based on forum selection clause in ticket specifying suit in Florida, dismissed cruise line, 63 F.Supp.2d 1083, the District Court, and motion of agents to dismiss, on motion of cruise line to dismiss or to transfer based on forum selection clauses. Based on alleged failure to provide appropriately accessible accommodations on a cruise ship, ). Carnival Cruise Lines (2000) 107 F.Supp.2d 1135 the Passengers sued cruise line and travel agents under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and state law (Unruh? But in Walker v.

Motion to dismiss denied. And (2) retention was supported on grounds that public policy favored encouragement of private actions to enforce ADA, supported retention of jurisdiction, and their poverty, held that: (1) extreme severity of passengers' handicaps, . J, henderson, the District Court. Passengers moved for reconsideration.

Can Minors Avoid a Cruise Liner Forum Selection Clause Easier than an Adult?

Rather than the United States District Court for the Central District of California), ( C.D.Cal.1999) (concluding that exclusive jurisdiction for the plaintiff's action against the defendant was in the courts of Vermont, 1999 WL 1074120, . Inc, putney Student Travel. Paster v, to the exclusion of the courts of any other country or located in any other state of the United States" (emphasis added)); before a court located in the State of Hawaii, if at all, 585-86 (M.D.Ala.1998) (granting Defendant American Hawaii Cruises's motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue based on a forum selection clause which required that any lawsuit arising out of the cruise "must be brought and litigated, 583. 178 F.R.D, airlines. Am. Harden v, ( E.D.N.Y.2002) (granting defendant's motion to transfer plaintiff's case from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida), 1996 WL 68536, . Carnival Corp. See Igneri v. Rather than arbitration clauses, all of which involved forum selection clauses, morrow relied on three cases. At issue was the forum selection clause printed on the cruise ship ticket, 262 F.Supp.2d 474 (M.D.Pa.2002), . Ltd, norwegian Cruise Line. In Morrow v. Almost every case I could find about minors concluded that a minor child who was injured while a passenger on a cruise ship is bound by the passenger contract also.

1406; §? C. Transfer under 28 U.S.

1406(a); §. C. " 28 U.S. Transfer such a case to any district or division in which it could have been brought, or if it be in the interest of justice, section 1406(a) provides: "The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss.

1631); §. C. 262 (9th Cir.1990) (addressing transfer under 28 U.S, 905 F.2d 259, hambrick. " Miller v. "Normally transfer will be in the interest of justice because normally dismissal of an action that could have been brought elsewhere is time-consuming and justice-defeating. Or dismiss the action altogether; a court may transfer a pending case to another state, 1406, under §.

Other Cases Where a Forum Selection Clause Was Held Unenforceable

Under the facts and circumstances presented, the state courts in the following cases held that a forum selection clause in a cruise ticket was unenforceable.

The requisite mutual consent to that contractual term would be lacking and no valid contract with respect to such clause would exist, absent such notice, determined that such a plaintiff did not have sufficient notice of the forum selection clause prior to entering into the contract for passage; upon remand, was unenforceable as to any particular plaintiff if the trial court, the court held that the forum selection clause which provided that all disputes arising under or in connection with the ticket contract for passage on the cruise ship would be litigated in Florida courts, an action by passengers on a cruise ship against the owners for injuries sustained during a storm at sea, 1991). 320 (2d Dist. 1992 A.M.C, 323. Rptr. 286 Cal, 3d 1019. App. 234 Cal, superior Court. V. Inc, in Carnival Cruise Lines.

In light of safety concerns following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, as the passengers made repeated requests to reschedule their ticket, which included the forum selection clause, the terms and conditions of the vacation ticket, as a binding contract, the court held that the evidence did not establish that the prospective passengers impliedly accepted. And the forum selection clause was not enforceable under federal maritime law, held that the passengers did not impliedly accept the forum selection clause, and the plaintiffs appealed, based on the contractual forum selection clause, and the trial court granted the operator's motion to dismiss, based on safety concerns following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, relating to the operator's failure to honor their request to reschedule their ticket, in which prospective passengers for a vacation cruise brought an action against the cruise ship operator, 829 N.E.2d 1171 (2005), 785. Ct. App. 63 Mass, . Ltd, norwegian Cruise Line. The court in Casavant v.

And the court held that a suit may therefore proceed in the Massachusetts courts, the Florida-dictated forum selection clause was not enforceable, under controlling federal maritime law and Massachusetts contractual law, the passengers did not accept the ticket as a binding contract, in the limited time frame allotted, " and because, because the manner and means of the delivery of the terms of the contract for passage did not fairly allow the passengers "the option of rejecting the contract with impunity. Where the prospective passengers could not reject the forum selection clause with impunity, that court also held that the forum selection clause was not enforceable under federal maritime law.

Fundamentally unfair, and the clause was therefore, and each passenger received his ticket at a time wherein he could not have canceled without incurring a penalty, held that the clause was unenforceable where the passengers first obtained notice of it upon receipt of their respective cruise tickets, florida, requiring suit to be brought in Broward County, reversing the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' negligence action against a cruise line pursuant to a forum selection clause in cruise tickets purchased by the plaintiffs, the court, amarillo 2001). App. 2001 WL 6546 (Tex, . Inc, radisson Seven Seas Cruises. In Cismaru v.

Which preempts state law, and are therefore governed by federal maritime law, that issues relating to the enforceability of a forum selection clause in a cruise line passenger ticket are issues of admiralty, initially, the court noted. And they had no opportunity to reject the clause without a penalty at the time they received the ticket, the passengers did not receive the ticket until after they paid for the cruise in full, where the 111-page promotional brochure sent to passengers did not contain the clause, and thus was unenforceable against passengers in their personal injury action against the cruise line, offended notions of fair play and fundamental fairness, requiring suit to be brought in Florida, appearing in minuscule print on the back of a cruise line passenger ticket, a forum selection clause, under federal maritime law, the court held, 1999). Houston 14th Dist. App. 215 (Tex. 2001 A.M.C, 5 S.W.3d 232, . Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. In Stobaugh v.

So as to comport with fundamental fairness, and at a time that affords an opportunity to reject such a term without penalty, concluded that parties who intend to deprive Texas citizens of the right to use their courts by way of a forum selection clause must give notice of that intention in an effective manner, for purposes of forum selection clause analysis, recognizing that the state has a significant interest in providing its citizens with a forum in which to resolve civil disputes, the court. But the clause must be fundamentally fair to the party against whom it is being enforced, the court said, a forum selection clause that is not negotiated may be enforceable in some situations. Forum selection clauses that are negotiated are generally enforceable, under federal maritime law, the court continued.

Which did not raise issues about the content of the contract or attempt to enforce or challenge rights emanating from the contract, did not apply to the purchasers' claims, california, requiring suit to be brought in San Francisco, held that the forum selection clause in the cruise ticket contract, reversing the trial court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue, the court, for alleged misrepresentations and failure to make disclosures, (DTPA). 17.41 et seq; § §. Code Ann. Com; &. Bus. Tex, a suit by purchasers of cruise tickets and trip cancellation insurance under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, san Antonio 1993). App. 856 S.W.2d 243 (Tex, . Inc, alfa Travel. In Pozero v.

And the forum selection clause must be fundamentally fair, explained that maritime law applies a two-prong test to determine the enforceability of a forum selection clause contained in a passenger ticket: the terms must be reasonably communicated to the passenger; recognizing that a passenger ticket for an ocean voyage is a maritime contract whose interpretation and enforcement is governed by maritime law, the court. Was unfair and unenforceable, washington, requiring disputes to be litigated in Seattle, set forth in fine print, held that the clause, reversing the trial court's dismissal of the complaint based on the forum selection clause in the cruise ticket, the court, 806, where cruise ship passengers who were forced to cancel their trip less than 15 days before departure requested a refund or credit of the ticket price of $9, 1996). App. 557 N.W.2d 475 (Ct, 2d 562. 206 Wis, . Inc, holland America Line-Westours. In Johnson v.

Reasonably Communicated Test

806 if they had rejected the contract and canceled the trip on receipt of the ticket, the passengers would have had to forfeit one-half of the entire purchase price of $9, and under the plain terms of the ticket, the forum selection clause was unfair and unenforceable where the passengers received the ticket less than 45 days before departure, the court found, in the instant case. The purchaser's familiarity with the ticket and the incentive to study the provisions and notices received, and the court must examine circumstances surrounding the purchase of the ticket, is a question of law, the court explained, reasonable notice. The court must determine whether the contract reasonably communicated to the passenger the existence of important terms and conditions that affected the legal rights of the passenger, under the "reasonably communicated" test for enforceability of a forum selection clause in a passenger ticket.

2005). 1st Dist. Ct. 838 N.E.2d 80 (App, 593. Dec. 297 Ill, . Ltd, royal Caribbean Cruises. Mack v. And perforated sheet that passengers signed dockside when they were unable to provide bus and cruise tickets was not attached to a larger document containing forum selection clause, passengers were unable to provide bus and cruise tickets to ship owner's representatives, passengers testified they never received ticket booklet containing bus and cruise tickets, was not against manifest weight of evidence; so that clause was not enforceable under federal admiralty law, state trial court's conclusion that forum selection clause in cruise ship ticket contract was not reasonably communicated to passengers.

CONCLUSION

2007), ( D.Or.Fed.1. At 4. Slip Op, 07-68-AS. No, . Inc, ryerson. (Gagnon v. You would still need present compelling evidence that Florida law provides less protection than CA law if arguing state interest in protecting a minor, assuming it is a Carnival lawsuit, in all events. Has a special state interest in protecting its own children and fundamental fairness dictates the minor litigate his/her case here in CA based upon the above cases, such as California ("CA"), if a minor is involved you can try and argue that your state.

Not just the irksome portions"), 671 (1969) (asserting that minors choosing to disaffirm a contract must "disaffirm the entire contract, 669. 75 Cal.Rptr, 421, 270 Cal.App.2d 417, . Co. Universal Underwriters Ins. Holland v, a minor may not void a contract to escape the forum selection clause contained therein if the minor has already accepted the benefits under the contract); 587 (M.D.Ala.1998), 583. 178 F.R.D, american Airlines. And remember that under Harden v.

Psychological bills and physical and mental pain and suffering damages, where do I file my cruise line accident case will depend upon whether or not you can void the forum selection clause and file a cruise ship case in a state other than the one your passage contract that is more convenient to your or the injured victim trying to recover damages like medical bills. If fraud then you have a basis to void the clause. Or a misrepresentation of safety, is a minor being raped is an acceptance of a benefit, the question becomes, assuming a minor child was raped on a cruise liner for example?