Batiz v. Carnival Corporation
3:12-cv-01262
D.P.R.Nov 9, 2012Background
- Batiz and her Puerto Rico residents sued Carnival entities in a diversity action for injuries on a Carnival cruise.
- Carnival moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, to transfer to the Southern District of Florida based on a forum selection clause.
- Court indicated it would not dismiss but would transfer the case if warranted, and referred motion to the undersigned judge.
- The cruise ticket contract contains a forum selection clause requiring disputes to be litigated in the Southern District of Florida.
- Batiz argues the clause is unreasonable or improperly communicated, and minors should not be bound by it.
- Carnival asserts the clause is facially clear and reasonably communicated, with multiple delivery methods of the contract to Batiz and her travel arrangements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the forum clause enforceable under the two-prong test? | Batiz contends enforcement is unreasonable and inadequately communicated, especially to minors. | Carnival argues the clause is clear and reasonably communicated to Batiz and her party. | Yes; the clause is enforceable under the two-prong test. |
| Should the case be transferred to the Southern District of Florida? | Transfer would be highly burdensome given Batiz's health and travel constraints. | Transfer is proper to give effect to the forum selection clause. | Transfer to SDFL is granted. |
| Is an evidentiary hearing warranted to resolve factual disputes on the clause? | Batiz seeks an evidentiary hearing to challenge terms and notice. | No material factual disputes necessitating a hearing are shown. | Denial of evidentiary hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1972) (forum-selection clause enforceability anchored in reasonableness and justness)
- Rosa-Nales v. Carnival Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79556 (D.P.R. 2012) (example cited for enforceability and communication of terms (not included here as official reporter))
- Shankles v. Costa Armatori, S.P.A., 722 F.2d 861 (1st Cir. 1983) (two-prong test: facial clarity and passenger familiarity with terms)
- Lousararian v. Royal Caribbean Corp., 951 F.2d 7 (1st Cir. 1991) (second prong: reasonableness of notice and extrinsic factors)