Thompson v. Carnival Corp.
174 F. Supp. 3d 1327
S.D. Fla.2016Background
- Plaintiff Timothy Thompson, a Carnival Valor passenger, was injured during a December 12, 2014 ATV shore excursion in St. Kitts allegedly operated by Delisle Walwyn and Kantours and marketed/sold by Carnival.
- Thompson sued Carnival and the two St. Kitts excursion entities asserting negligence (against all), apparent agency/agency by estoppel, joint venture, and third-party beneficiary theories.
- The Excursion Entities moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; Carnival moved to dismiss for failure to state claims.
- Excursion Entities argued their limited Florida contacts did not permit general or specific jurisdiction; Thompson asked for jurisdictional discovery and relied on agency/consent arguments.
- The court concluded it lacked personal jurisdiction over the Excursion Entities and dismissed them with prejudice; it dismissed Counts I, III, IV, and V against Carnival without prejudice and granted leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Excursion Entities | Excursion Entities consented via contract with Carnival; Carnival’s Florida contacts impute jurisdiction; request for jurisdictional discovery | Excursion Entities’ contacts with Florida are insufficient for general or specific jurisdiction; no basis for Rule 4(k)(2); discovery not warranted | Court: No personal jurisdiction; dismissed Excursion Entities with prejudice |
| Rule 4(k)(2) federal long-arm | Maritime claims are federal so nationwide contacts may be aggregated | Excursion Entities’ nationwide contacts are too attenuated; Rule 4(k)(2) rarely applies absent extensive contacts | Court: Rule 4(k)(2) unavailable here; contacts insufficient |
| Negligence against Carnival (Count I) | Carnival breached duties by marketing/selling excursion and failing to ensure safety/inspect/monitor or warn | Carnival: complaint is conclusory, fails to plead facts showing it knew/should have known of danger; many alleged duties exceed maritime duty to warn | Court: Pleading deficient—failure to allege facts triggering duty to warn or proximate causation; Count I dismissed without prejudice |
| Apparent agency / Agency by estoppel (Count III) | Thompson reasonably relied on Carnival’s representations to believe excursion operator was Carnival’s agent | Carnival: inadequate factual predicate for negligence or agency; Ticket Contract bars reasonable reliance | Court: Dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead underlying negligence and requisite agency facts |
| Joint venture claim (Count IV) | Carnival and Excursion Entities jointly intended to operate and share profits/losses | Carnival: Agreement expressly disclaims joint venture; complaint conclusory on sharing profits/losses | Court: No adequate factual allegations of joint venture; dismissed without prejudice |
| Third-party beneficiary claim (Count V) | Thompson alleges contract between Carnival and operator intended to primarily benefit passengers | Carnival: No clear, mutual intent in contract to primarily and directly benefit passenger | Court: Claim speculative and conclusory; dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (general jurisdiction limited to place of incorporation or principal place of business; only exceptional contacts render a corporation "at home" elsewhere)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (U.S. 2011) (general jurisdiction requires contacts comparable to being "at home")
- Carmouche v. Tamborlee Mgmt., Inc., 789 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2015) (foreign tour operator’s Florida contacts insufficient for general jurisdiction)
- Fraser v. Smith, 594 F.3d 842 (11th Cir. 2010) (contacts like targeting U.S. customers and some business ties did not establish general jurisdiction)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (complaints must plead factual content plausibly showing entitlement to relief)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings; no ‘‘formulaic’’ recitations)
- Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2012) (maritime duty: cruise operator owes reasonable care; duty to warn applies off-ship where passengers are invitees)