Korman v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd.
243 Cal. Rptr. 3d 668
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Plaintiff Barry Korman was injured in February 2017 aboard the Crown Princess (spa/gym incident) and sued Princess Cruise Lines in Los Angeles Superior Court for negligence, res ipsa loquitur, and breach of contract.
- The cruise ticket (passage contract) contained a forum-selection clause requiring personal injury claims to be litigated in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles), or, if federal courts lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, in Los Angeles County state court; it also contained a one-year filing limitation.
- Defendant (Princess) moved under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 410.30 and 418.10 to stay or dismiss for forum non conveniens based on the forum-selection clause.
- The superior court initially stayed the action, concluding the clause was mandatory and federal court had subject-matter jurisdiction; plaintiff declined to refile in federal court and the superior court later dismissed the action without prejudice for forum non conveniens.
- On appeal plaintiff argued (1) the state forum non conveniens statutes do not apply because the clause selects a federal forum; (2) the clause is unenforceable or unreasonable; and (3) defendant’s failure to remove within 30 days under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) deprived the federal court of jurisdiction, making the state court the correct forum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of §§ 410.30 / 418.10 to enforce a forum-selection clause | §§ 410.30/418.10 don't apply because plaintiff sued in-state and the clause selects a federal forum | Forum-selection clauses are enforced via motions under §§ 410.30/418.10; those statutes govern motions to decline jurisdiction | Statutes apply; defendant may seek dismissal under those statutes to enforce a forum clause |
| Mandatory vs. permissive clause | Clause should be treated differently because it specifies a federal court | Clause language (“shall be litigated … to the exclusion of the courts of any other … locale”) is mandatory | Clause is mandatory: requires federal court if it has subject-matter jurisdiction; state court only if federal lacks jurisdiction |
| Reasonableness / enforceability of a federal-forum clause | Designating a federal court (and limiting state court) is unreasonable and unfair; state courts should hear maritime claims | Federal-forum designation is a valid contractual choice; Shute and other cases support enforceability; plaintiff had notice | Enforcement is not unreasonable; clause enforceable (no showing clause would prevent substantial justice or lacks rational basis) |
| Effect of defendant not removing within 30 days under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) | Failure to timely remove deprived federal court of jurisdiction, so the state-court exception in the clause applies | § 1446(b)’s 30-day rule is procedural and not jurisdictional; failure to remove does not strip federal jurisdiction | Plaintiff’s removal argument fails; defendant’s delay in removing does not divest federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (U.S. 1991) (forum-selection clauses in cruise tickets may be enforceable despite form-contract nature)
- Docksider, Ltd. v. Sea Technology, Ltd., 875 F.2d 762 (9th Cir. 1989) (language like “shall be” indicates a mandatory forum clause)
- Oltman v. Holland America Line USA, Inc., 178 P.3d 981 (Wash. 2008) (upholding clause selecting a federal district court with state-court fallback)
- Lischinskaya v. Carnival Corp., 56 A.D.3d 116 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008) (enforcing cruise ticket clause selecting federal forum or state court if federal lacks jurisdiction)
- Leslie v. Carnival Corp., 22 So.3d 561 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008) (same; rejecting argument that federal designation impermissibly limits state courts)