Eisenman et al v. Carnival Corporation, No. 1:2019cv22431 - Document 25 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER Denying 10 Carnival Corporation Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Senior Judge James Lawrence King on 12/11/2019. See attached document for full details. (jw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Eisenman et al v. Carnival Corporation Doc. 25 U N ITED STA TE S D ISTR ICT C OU R T SOUTHERN DIjTRICT OFFLORIDA M IAM IDIVISION èxsExo.1:19rcv-2z431-JLx LINDA J.EISENM AN,JULIE EISENMAN, and RYAN EISENM AN, Plaintiffs, CARN IV AL CORPOR ATION , D efendant. ORDER DENYING CARNIVAL CORPOM TION 'S M OTIOX TO DISM ISS ' THISMATTER isbeforetheCoul'tonDefendantUaynivalCorporation'sMotionto . ' -.- ' . .. -.:. .& , . ' Dismiss,filedJuly25,2019(DE 10)(theEsM otion'').TheCourthqsalso considered Plaintiffs' . ' . . .: .. ResponseinOppojition(D5 14)andCarnival'sReplyM emprandum il)SupportoftheM osion '. . ' '' ' (DE 17),andheardoralargtlmentontheMotion onNovember)4,2019. 1. BA CK G R O U ND I 1 . Plaintiffsbringthismaritimewrongfuldeath actiohagainstCarnivalassertipjclkimsfor (1)negligenceunderiheDeathontheHfgh SeasAct,46U.S.0.jj30301-30308(SCDOHSA'') . #, ' (CountsIthrough 1V)and(2)intentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress(CountsV throughV1I). According to theallegationsin theComplaint,on December1,2018,LindaEisenm an andher husbandJeffrey EisenmanboardedCarnival'sSunshinevesselwiththeirchildren(Plaintiffs JtflieandRyan)foracruisefrom FloridatotheCaribbean.(SeeCoppl.!12,DE 1.) Onthe momingofDecembey3,2018,theshipdocked inGrandTtzrk.(Id.! 13.) Ataround 1:* 00p.m ., jThe factua' lallegAtionsin the Com plaintare accepted as true'' and construed in the lightm ost favorable to Plaintiffsforpulmosesofnzling on Carnival'sM otion to D ism iss. SeeBroqks v. BlueCross& BlueShieldofFla.,Inc.,116F.3d 1364r1369(11thCir.1.997). Dockets.Justia.com Jeffreyhecamei11andhadtobetakentotheship'smedicalcenterinawheelchair.(f#.) The shipphysicianttquickly diagnosed (Jeffrey)ashavingsufferedamajorheartattack''ahdtoldthe j l . Eisenmans(that'heG$wouldneedtobetiöwiitoM iymi'becaus' e GrndTurkhospitalwa snot ..' . . . . . . equippedwithacardiacunit.''(f#.!!14-15.) Theshipwasstilldockedin GrandTurkatthe 3 - :, time,whichhasan intep atlonalairportwithflightstoM iami.(Id.! 16.) ' ..'. . . .. . . ' However,justbefore4:0 .0p.m.,theshipphysicianc>mebackintothemedicalcentqrand nnnouncùdthatJeffrey coulànotketofftheshipbecausesomqoneelsehadtobemedicglly . . -'. ., J -. . . , . . . . . . u disembarkedsrst.(1d ! 17.) TheEisenmansbeggedanèpleadedWithCarpivalto1ètthem off . - . . theship in Grand Turk becausethephysician had Cttoldthem thattim ewasoftheesspnce. ''(Id. . !18.)They alsoexplainedthattheyhadpurchasedinsurjncetocoveranairevaqpationirithe evento?amedicalemergency.(f#.! 19.) Also,pccordingto Carnival's.GtpassengéiBillof'. , Rights,''alicruisepassengershavetheçtrighttobisembarkktdockedship ifessentialprovisiops such as...medicalcarecarmotàdequatelybeprovidedonboard.''(1d.!20.)Nonethelejs, . Carnivalrefused to lettheEisenm arp offthe ship,and insteàd decidedto setsailforSan Juan, PuertoRico- azlrhourjourneybyseafartherawayfrom theUnitedStates.(Id.!17.) ) ' Onceatsea,Jeffrey'sconditioncontinuedtodecline.(J#.!22.) Helostconso ciousnçss andbeganhqvingrespiratoryproblems.(f#.) (tl-lisfnmilywatchedonin agonfgsheslowly . . 2 . slippedaway.''.31d4 AlmosttwelvehoursaftertheshipleftGrandTurk,Jèffreywbntinto cardiacarrest.(1d.:.24.) JeffreyEisenman diedonboardwhilçconsnedtotheship'smedical. ' centei'.(f#.) Inajtateofdevajtation anddissress,LindaandJulieEisenmanlefttheshipwhenit arrivedin'PuertoRict).(1d !27.) TheComplaintàllegesthatthey ttsufferedextremeemotional distressatbeing confiped on the vesselagainsttheirw illfollow ing the onsetofJeffrey 2 Eisenman'smedicalemergency.''(f#.) RyanEisenman stayedontheshipwithhisfather'sb .ody asCarnivalfipishedit$eleven-dqy cruise.(Id.!!28,72.) On June 12,2019,Plaintiffsfiled thisaction allegingthatJeffrey Eisenm an's death . resultedfrom thenegligenceofCarnivalanditsmedicalandnon-medicalpersormel(Counts1 throughIV).Plaintiffsalsoassertclaimsforintentionalinfliction ofemoti ,onaldistressin their individualcapacities,alleging thatCarnival'sconductwqsSsextreme and outrageouj''and cqused them tosufferseverebmotionaldislress(CountsV ihroughV11).CarnivalnoF movestodismiss ' . . ' . . . theComplaiptforfailuretostateaclaim.(Seegenerally Mot.,DE 10.) Cmmivalarguesthatthe emotionaldistressclaimsshouldbedismissedbecause(a)theyarepreemptedby DOHSA,and (b)Carnival'sconductwasnotsufticientlytdoutrageous''tostateaclaim .(f#.at3.) Carnival also arguesthtthenegligenceclaimsshould bedism issed asimproperltshotgun''pleadingsthat groupmultipletheoriesofliabilityineachcount.(f#.) II. LEGAL STANDARU $$Atthem otion to dismissstage,a courtdoesnotreach them eritsofthesuit,only the sufficiency ofthecomplaint.''Elbazv.RoyalCaribbean Cruises,L/t; l,N o.16-24568,2017 W L 37737215at*1(j.D.Fla.Jan.12,2017)(citingfevy v.City ofHollywood,90F.Supp.2d 1344, ' . . 1345.(S.D.#la.20001).lnruliùgon amotiontodismiss,thecou14mustacceptthefactual allegationsin thecomplaiptastrue and construethem in thelightm ostfavorabletotheplaintiff. See Brooks,116 F.3d at1369..To survive a m ption to dism iss,a com plaintm ustinclude isenough facts'to stpteaclaim to reliefthatisplausibleon itsface.''BellAtl.Corg.v.Twolnbly, . 550U.S.544,570(2007).A itclaim hasf>cialplausibilitywhentheplaintiffpleadsfactual ; . contentthàtallow sthe courtto draw the reasonable inference thatthe defendantis li:ble fprthe niiscdnductalleged.''Ashcro.ftv.Iqbal,556U.S.662,678(2009). 3 111.oljèrssloN A. Plaintiffs'EmotionalDistressClaimsAreNotbarredByDOHSA ' . DOHSA wasepactedioprovide;(aunifgl'm andeffeclivewrongfuldeatj)remç.jygor survivorsofpersopskilledonthehigh seas.''OffàhoreLogistics,Inc.v.Tallentire,477U S. . . 20t,214 (1986).TheActappl)es$:E ',w)henthedeathofa 'nindividualiscausedbywrongfulqct, . ' '' . . è' . '.. , . ' . ' . . . ' . neglect,ordefaultoccurring on thehigh seasbèyond 3nquticàlm ilesfrom 1heshoreofthe United States.'' 46 U.S.C.j30302.2 DOH SA lim itsiecovery to itthepeçuniary losssust:ined by . . , . : . . . theindividualsforwhèsebenefitthçactionisbrougàt.''Id: j30303.' TheSupremeCo 'urthas . . . . . heldthatDOHSA ltartnouncesCongress'consideredjudgment''onissuessuch asd>magejin maritimewrongfuldeath cases,kfobilOilCorp.v.Higginbotham,436U.S.618,625(1978),and ''doesnotauthorize recovery'forthe decedent'sow n losses, nordoe!italloF dam agesfor . ' . . nonpecuniarylosses,''D ooley v.'Korean AirLinesCo., 524U.S.116,12i(1998). . . CarnivalarguesthatDOHSA barsPlaintiffs'em otionaldistressclaim sbecausethey seek ' ' J . . nonpecuniarydamagçs. (i.e.,emotionaldistressdamages)forthesamecohductthatcqused ' . . . L JeffreyEisenman'sdeath on thehigh seas.'Carnivalreliesprim arily onH nwalid v.Crystal Cruises Inc.,No.91-642,1992W L 194659(E.D.Cal.M ar.13,1992),andRuxv.Republicof .. ' ' Sudan,495F.Supp.2d 541(E.D.Va.20ô7).ButHowardandRukareboth distinguishableqs. . theplaintiffsin those cqseswereclaim ing em otionaldistressbased solely on thedeathcoftheir ' .. loved oneson thehigh seas,noton the eventssurrounding thedcath aspersonàlly experienced .' ( . bythem .In Howard, 'forinitance, apassengeri njuredhisànk' lewhiledlàoardingtheshipand ' . 2Plaintiffsconcede thtD OH SA applies givèn thatJeffreywEisenm an's death ocçurred w hile the . shipwassailingfrom GrandTurktokuel' toRicoandallegedlyresulteéfrop actjthatoccurrek attheship;sportofcallin GrandTurk.Se'eRidley p.VCf (Bahamaq)Ltd.,' 824F.'SùpYp.2d 1355,1359(S.D.Fla.2010)(King,J.)(notingthatcourtshgveStconsistentlyinterpretedDOHSA asapplyingio'maritimeincidents.occurringwithiptheten-itorialwaters(lfforeignstatçs''). ' - -- . . .' . laterdiedwhep abloodclottraveledtohiklungs..Howard,1992W L 194659,at*1.Wllen' hij ''. . pglwiving fam ily m em bersm ovçd to add claim sfornegligqntinfliçtion ofem otiqnaldistlyss,the ' . . ' . . courtdenied themotion and foupd thattheclaim sweretsclearly precludedunderDOHSA. ''Id j ' . ' . -- ' . ' at.*6. H ow evçr,uhl ikethiscase,therewereGtnoéllegatibnjg)ofanygtherspecitk,epotionally. . u ) . -. . , traum atizingeventwitnkssed by thedecedent'sjùrvivorq.bqyqndthelose softhedecedent.'' . ' . . . . . . ' .. . . ' M artinsv.RoyalCaïibbean CruisesLtd,174F.Supp.3(11345,1352 n.5(j.D.' F1a.2016). .' . .. , . . ' . , . .. ' , . . ' . Similarly,inRux,familf MemkersofthesailorswhowerekilledbythçOctobef2000terrorist bombingoftheU.S.S.ColeV oughtefnotionaldistressclaimsagainsttheRepublicofSudan ' --' . --'' '- . * .'' , stemmingfrom theg. ttacktùatkilledtheirfovedones.Rux,49!F.Supp.2dat543.Aftera ' . . '. . . .. nonjurytrial,thecourtfoundthàtthepl>intiffs'claimswerepreemjtbdbyDOHSA wherethe emotionaldistressstémm ed directly from learnihg ofthedeathsoftheirloved ones. See id.at . q ' . . . .. . .. 565;M artins,174F.Supp.3d at1352.H ere,by contrast,theEisenmansareclaip ingh bmotipnal distressbasedupon thetotality ofeventssurrotmding Jeffrey Eisenm an'sdeath,which they . . ' . .. . .' . - ' experiencedfirsthdnd,Yhisjoesbeyondmerelyleamiùgofthedeathoftheirlbved,onè.' M oreover,asPlaintiffspointoutjseveralcasesfrom thisdistricyhaveallowed family u ' . .. . . , . . ' . m çmbersto'sueförtsimotionaldistressthatisnotthe anguish ofloss,butratherthe anguish of '''*' a .. . L ' '''*' ' ' . theeventsleadingtothelossasdirectly>nélpersopalexperiencedbytheplaintiffà.''M artins, x 174F.Supp.3dat1353;seealsoBlairv.NCL (Bahamas)Ltd ,212F.Supp.3d 1264 (S,D.Fla. 2016)(Seitz,J.);smithv.CarnivalCorp.,584F. 'Sujp.2d 1343(S.D.Fla.2008)(Moore,J.).' Forexample,inSmith,twodaughterswhohadwitnessedtàeirmotherdrown duringasnorkel' . trip excursion in the Càym an Islandjsued thecruiselineforwrongf'uldeath andnegligent inqiction ofem otionaldistress.Smith,585F.Supp'.2d at1345. In denying the cruiseline's ' motiontodismiss,,thecouitexp1ainedthatthectaughtersWereçtnotseekingrecoveryfortheir 5 mothey'sdeath orherprexdeathpain and suffering only forthe emotionaldistressthathas resultedfrom witnessing it. Indeed,thefactthatadeath occun-ed isnptessentialto theirclaim .'' . 1d.at1353.Assuch,thecourtexplained,theclaim sdid Ssnotfallwithin DOHSA'Snmbit, ahd gj ' canhard1ybesaidtorepresintîcongress'consideredjudgment'ontheissue.''Id (quoting. Higginbothaln,436U.S.at625);seealsoMartins,174F.Supp.3dat1353(denyingmotionto dismisswherem othersvted cntiselineafterwitnessing daughterdiefrpld eatingbqcteria-riddçn food and ship failed to evacuateherform edicalcare,explainingthatthem other'sclqipswere notjust.basedonStthranguish ofloss''butonçttheanguishoftheeventsleadingtotheloss>s directlyandpersonallyexperiencedbytheplaintiffs'').Similaily,here;Plaintiffs'claimsm-e based ontheanguiph oftheeventsleading up tothelossofJeffrry Eisenm an,noton the loss . itself..Assuch,Plaintiffs'emotionaldistressclaimsarenotbarredby DOHSA.3. B. The Com plaintAdeqùately PleadsExtrem eand OutrageousCondtlct Courtssittingin admiraltytypicallylookxtotheRestatement(Second)ofTortsj46 (1965)aswellasstate1aw to'eyaluateclaimsforintentionalinfliction ofemotionaldistresj.See Wuv.NCL (Bahamas)Ltd.,No.16-22270,2017W L 1331712,at*2(S.D.Fla.Apr.11,2017) . ' N. ' (Scola,J.).Tostateaclaim forintentionalinflictionofemotionaldistressunderFlotidqlaw,a complaintmilstallegr:(1)thedefendantadedrecklesslyorintentionally;(2)thedefendant's . ' . conductwasextremeahdoutrageous;(3)thedefendant'sconductcausedtheplaintiffs ' . . : J Calmivalattempt!todistin'guishSmithandM artinsasinvolvingclaimsfornegligent(rather . thanintentionao i' nflictlo 'n ofemotionaldistress,arguingthatsubh claimsareSEentirelydifferent'' becauseaplaintiffmu/ show thatshewasplaced in the ttgone ofdanger''torecoverém otional ' distressdnm'ages. (SeeM ot.10-12, ) àutnothingiilMartil)ssuggeststhatthecourtdeniedthe m otion to dism isstm derD OH SA because.the'm otherhad been placed in the Ktzone ofdalm er''by eating food sim ilarto the bacteriarridden food thatcaused herdaughter'sdeath. Instead,the courtsimplyfocusedonthetypeofanguish givingrisetothemother'sclaims.Marlins,174F. Supp.3d at1353. M om over,in Sm ith,the courtheld thatthe em otionaldistress claim ssulwived bOHSA despitefindingthatthedaughtershad(çnotallegedanyfactsiridicatingthat(theyjwere in the zone ofdanger.'' Sm ith,584 F.Supp.2d at 1355. ' 6 ' . emotionaldistress;and(4)theplaintiffsemotionaldistresswassevere.SeeMetropolitanL# lns.Co.p.M ccarson,467 So.2d277,278(Fla.1985).Here,VarnivalarguesthattheCpmplaint failstopleadthesecond elem ent:tcextrem eand outrageous''conduct. The Courtdisgrees.TheComplaintplleges,am'ong otherthings, thatCarnivalrefusedto . ' . . 1ettheEisenmansoffthesllip while itFasdocked in Grand Ttlrk in spite ofthe statem entby the . ship'sphysician thatJeffrey would need tobeflown to M iam ito undergo possiblçheartsurgery . ' ;. and thgttim ewasofthe essence.Asdescribed in theComplaipt,CarnivalGtleftG k w ith . rand Tur Jkffrek rland hisfam ily contined onboard againsttheirwill''asthe ship sailed fqrtheraway fm m .. .'' . k'''' z' '' '''' . ' ''' .. . r .'. help,forcingthem toSlWatchoninagony ajgleffreyjslowlyslippedaway.''(Compl.!!3'21,2 3.) . . . , . . .. . . 4 Acceptingtheseallegationsastrueandtiewingthem inthelightmostfavorabletqPlaintiffs,the . . . ' . - .. . Cot!l'tfindsthattheComplaintadéquatelypleadsextrem eandoutrageousconduct. Accordingly, . -- -- ' , -' ' . .. . . .- Carnival'sMotiontoDismiss'forfailuretostateaclatm mustbedenied.4 C. The N egligence Claim sA re N otIm prbper dfshotgun''Pleadings ' Finally,CarnivalurgestheCourtto dismissPlaintiffs'negligenceclaim sasimproper --shotgun,'pleadingstàatttincludemultiple,distinctbases?orliability.''(seeMt o).18.)The' . k . t: Courtdeclinesto do so.ltistruethatonetype ofshotgun pleading ija complalntihat çoyy um yts thesin ofnotseparating intb adifferentcounteach causeofaction orblaim forrelief.'' Weiland . ' v,Palm Beach C/ y.Sherff'sO.f#cc,792F.3d 1313,1322(11th Cir.2015).ButtheComplaintin thiscase doesnotcomm itthatsin:itseparateseach negligence claim and em otionaldistresj 4Carnivalalso,seeksdismissalon groundsthattheem otionaldistressclaim sEsm erely re-describe othertorts arising from the sam e conductwhile chal-acterizing them as (outrageous conduct.''' (SeeM ot.14.) Bu1Carnivalreliesprimarilyondefamationcasesinmakingthisargument, which implicatetheElsinglepublication/singleaction rule''thatisû'designed tô discourage the , erosion offreespeech safeguardsby thesimpleexpedientoflôoldngto a substittzteçauseof actioh.''' OrtegaTrujillov.Banco Cent.delEcuador,17F.Supp.2d 1340,1343n.1(S.D.Fla. $1998). 'NosuchconcernsarepresentinShiscase. . claim intosevendifferentcounts.Lseegenerally Compl.) Thus,theCourtdeclinestodismiss thenegligenceclaim sésim properlcshotgun''pleadings. . Iv* coNclapslo: . ; . Accordingly,itisORDERED,ADJUDGEU,AND DECREED thatCalmival,sM otion toDismiss(DE 10)V,andthesameherebyis,DENIED.Carnivalshallqfileits.A nsw ertothe . ComplaintWithintwenty(20)daysè )iqm thedateofthisOrdçr . DONE A#D ORDERED in ChambersastheJamesLawrenceKlngFederalJustice Building and United St>tesCourthouse,M iam i,Florida,this11th day ofDecember,2019. . t M ES LA W REN E K IN G ITEI) jTATESDISTRICT JUDG cc: 'AIJcouhselofrecord '. 8
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
