963 F.3d 1302
11th Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiff Carmela DeRoy, a cruise passenger on the Carnival Valor, tripped on hallway carpeting, broke her foot, and sued Carnival for negligence.
- Her Carnival ticket contained a mandatory forum-selection clause: all disputes must be litigated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida if federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction; otherwise, in Miami-Dade County state court.
- DeRoy filed identical suits simultaneously in federal and Florida state court but pleaded in federal court so as to disclaim diversity, federal-question, and admiralty jurisdiction and expressly asked the federal court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
- Carnival moved to dismiss or for a more definite statement, contending admiralty jurisdiction attached and that the forum-selection clause required federal adjudication when federal jurisdiction exists.
- The district court accepted DeRoy’s tactic, dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under its view of the saving-to-suitors clause; Carnival appealed.
- The Eleventh Circuit reversed: it held admiralty jurisdiction existed based on the complaint’s facts regardless of DeRoy’s labels, Rule 9(h) applied, the saving-to-suitors clause did not let a plaintiff avoid federal court here, and the forum-selection clause mandated federal forum when federal jurisdiction could lie.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admiralty jurisdiction exists despite plaintiff disclaiming it | DeRoy argued she pleaded an in personam action at law and thus no admiralty jurisdiction exists | Carnival argued the injury occurred at sea on a cruise ship so admiralty jurisdiction applies | Held: Admiralty jurisdiction exists based on the facts; labels do not defeat jurisdiction |
| Whether Rule 9(h) requires election to invoke admiralty when admiralty is sole federal basis | DeRoy contended she need not invoke admiralty and could proceed at law in federal court | Carnival argued Rule 9(h) makes a claim cognizable only in admiralty an admiralty claim regardless of designation | Held: Where admiralty is the only federal basis, Rule 9(h) deems the claim admiralty even if plaintiff disclaims it |
| Whether the saving-to-suitors clause permits a plaintiff who files in federal court to avoid admiralty jurisdiction by pleading at law | DeRoy relied on the saving-to-suitors clause to argue she could be heard in state court or proceed at law | Carnival argued the clause does not let a plaintiff who files in federal court sabotage federal admiralty jurisdiction, especially when defendant consents to a jury trial | Held: Saving-to-suitors does not nullify federal admiralty jurisdiction here and does not permit the tactic DeRoy used |
| Whether the forum-selection clause requires federal-court litigation when federal jurisdiction could exist | DeRoy asserted the clause allowed state-court litigation when federal courts lacked jurisdiction and thus she could avoid federal forum | Carnival argued the clause is mandatory and requires federal forum when federal jurisdiction can lie | Held: Clause is mandatory; if federal jurisdiction could exist, the claim must be litigated in Southern District of Florida (or not at all) |
Key Cases Cited
- Caron v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., 910 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir. 2018) (personal-injury claims by cruise passengers at sea fall within admiralty jurisdiction)
- M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1972) (parties may contractually select federal forum)
- Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438 (U.S. 2001) (saving-to-suitors clause preserves some state-court remedies and concurrent jurisdiction)
- Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (U.S. 1996) (federal courts have duty to exercise jurisdiction conferred by Congress)
- Slater v. Energy Servs. Grp. Int’l, Inc., 634 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2011) (contract interpretation principles for forum-selection clauses)
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Lago Canyon, Inc., 561 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2009) (saving-to-suitors clause allows in personam maritime actions in federal admiralty, federal diversity, or state court)