Helpful Tools

Work in Progress

Listed below are some of our most recent filings in the State and Federal Court systems. We've posted this example of our work for a simple reason. When looking for an attorney to represent you in your maritime and admiralty claim, a search of the Internet will reveal many options. What that search will not reveal is the value that any of those options can bring to your case.

Anyone can profess to have the expertise necessary to represent you. The real proof is in the work being done. Most websites will list developments in the law and major news stories in the industry. Tellingly, what those websites will not list is what they’ve done to develop the law and make news in the industry. Our attorneys are working in the court system every day to vindicate the rights of passengers and crewmembers. This work has led to safer ships and a better workplace. We invite you to spend some time reviewing our work and comparing it to anything on the web. We trust that you’ll find many other firms talk about the law while Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman P.A. help shape the law. Plaintiff's names have been removed in order to protect their privacy.

May 17, 2013
John Doe v. Royal Caribbean, et al
Response to Motion to Dismiss
The experienced maritime lawyers of Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. are always striving to ensure that our clients rights are protected and to ensure that maritime law evolves in the manner best fit to protect passengers and crewmembers at sea. In this response to a motion to dismiss filed by Royal Caribbean, Plaintiff argues that he should be able to recover for injuries he sustained as a result of negligent medical care he received onboard the Oasis of the Seas.
May 09, 2013
John Doe v. William Pretorius, Jacqueline Gobeil, and Bryan Patiu (defendants) / John Doe v. Carnival Corp. (Garnishee)
Complaint
There can be many road blocks when seeking compensation for your cruise ship injury. That is why it is important to hire an experienced maritime lawyer like those at Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. Our attorneys have decades of combined experienced working on maritime injury cases. That experience allows us to pursue compensation for injured passengers and crew, even when a potential defendant cannot be found in this jurisdiction. In this Admiralty Rule B complaint, our experienced maritime attorneys sue foreign defendants by seeking to garnish the wages being paid to them by the garnishee cruise line.
May 06, 2013
Maersk Line Ltd. v. William C. Skye
Appellee's Response Brief
The maritime lawyers at Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. are experienced in representing injured passengers and crewmembers throughout all phases of litigation. In this case, an injured seaman brought a claim against Maersk Line Ltd. After the Plaintiff won at trial, Maersk appealed the jury's verdict. In his responsive brief, the Plaintiff argues that the facts support the jury's findings and that this verdict should not be overturned on appeal.
April 08, 2013
John Doe v. Star Clippers, Ltd., et al
Motion to Compel
Our Maritime attorneys are experienced in actively advocating on your behalf throughout all stages of litigation. This includes during the process of discovery. Discovery is a critical phase of litigation that can lead to information that will harm or hurt a maritime personal injury case. In this motion to compel, our admiralty lawyers ask the Court to order that the Defendant provide information relevant to prove that the Court can exercise its power over a foreign Defendant in the case.
April 08, 2013
John Doe v. Star Clippers, Ltd., et al
Motion to Compel
During the discovery process, the parties are permitted to ask written questions of one another (interrogatories) and request documents in the possession of the other party (request for production). In this motion to compel, our experienced maritime attorneys ask the Court to compel the the production of certain documents that the Defendants have objected to producing. Vigrous advocacy during the discovery ensures that our client's receive fair compensation for their injuries.
April 04, 2013
John Doe v. Carnival Corp., et al
Reply to Motion to Dismiss Appeal
Our maritime attorneys practice both active trial and appellate law. In this case, our admiralty lawyers pursue a Plaintiff's right to appeal the dismissal of his case for medical negligence against Carnival. One purpose of this appeal is to change long standing law that shields cruise lines from liability for the negligence of their doctors. For over thirty yeasr, Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. has strived to achieve fair compensation for its clients and safer ships for passengers and crewmembers.
March 29, 2013
John Doe v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd.
Complaint
In this case, a passenger was injured when the door handle on his cabin balcony door gave way as he attempted to open it. As a result, the passenger fell backwards, injuring his foot, back, and shoulder. Our experienced maritime attorneys filed a complaint in the Southern District of Florida pursuant to Norwegian Cruise Line's ticket contract, seeking compensation for the Plaintiff's injuries caused by the negligence of NCL.
March 18, 2013
Jane Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
Complaint
Slip and falls aboard cruise ships can occur in areas that experience a high volume of traffic and spills, leading to unsafe conditions on the floor. Often, this happens in food service areas. In this complaint filed in the Southern District of Florida on behalf of an injured passenger, our experienced maritime attorneys seek compensation for a person injured when Royal Caribbean staff failed to clean up food spilled in the middle of a passenger walkway, leading to a slip and fall.
March 18, 2013
John Doe v. Royal Caribbean, et al
Complaint
One danger aboard cruise ships which passengers are not commonly aware of is substandard medical care rendered by cruise ship medical staff. This situation can be made worse if a cruise ship doctor failes to timely evacuate a passenger in need of immediate emergency medical care. In this case, our experienced admiralty lawyers seek compensation for Royal Caribbean's negligent medical care rendered to aPlaintiff as well as for the cruise lines failure to act reasonably under the circumstances by evacuating that Plaintiff to a shore side medical facility, all of which led to injury.
March 13, 2013
Jane Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd, and Cruise Ship Excursions, Inc.
Response in Opposition to Motion to Strike Jury Demand
The right to a jury trial is one of the most fundamental rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Many passengers take this right for granted, but without the aid of an experienced maritime lawyer, passengers could lose this right. In this response in opposition to a motiolegal precedent prevent the Defendant from striking Plaintiff's demand for a jury trial.
March 11, 2013
Jane Doe v. Carnival Corp., et al
Response to Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process
Cruise ship passengers can encounter dangerous situations both on and off the ship. In this case, a passenger was injured while on a shore excursion in Cozumel Mexico. Plaintiff filed suit in the Southern District of Florida pursuant to Carnival's passenger ticket contract and included Carnival's co-owner/operator/manager of the shore excursion, Lisandra, S.A., in the lawsuit. Lisandra S.A. is a Mexican Corporation and it moved to dismiss the lawsuit for insufficient service of process. In this document, the Plaintiff outlines the various methods used to serve Lisandra and her compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Lisandra's right to due process.
March 08, 2013
Jane Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd, and Cruise Ship Excursions, Inc.
Unopposed Motion to Take Jurisdictional Discovery
One commonly used defense amongst shore excursion operators is a lack of personal jurisdiction. These operators work closely with the major cruise lines, but when their negligence causes an accident, they often claim that a court in Florida, the Courts which injured passengers are required to file suit in, does not have power over them. When shore excursion operators make this claim, the Plaintiff should be entitled to take discovery into the operator's ties with Florida. Herein, the parties conferred and agreed that jurisdictional discovery was appropriate and this motion was filed, unopposed, for the Court's consideration.
February 18, 2013
Crusan v. Carnival Corp.
Class Action Complaint
Cruise vacations are the fastest growing segment of the travel industry at a growth rate of 2,100% since 1970. This explosive growth has caused problems for cruise line operators including polution control and the provision of security to passengers aboard these modern day floating cities. Another problem faced by cruise ship operators, but not often mentioned in the media, is the ongoing maintenance required to keep ships reasonably fit for their operation at sea. The maritime environment is harsh and takes a toll on cruise ships which are required to operate 24 hours a day, often years at time. Without proper maintenance, policies and procedures, safeguards, and contingencies in place, passengers aboard these vessels can end up in a dangerous situation. This problem has recently gained national attention with the incident involving the Carnival Triumph. Passengers aboard the Triumph lived in abhorrent conditions for five days due to the alleged negligence of Carnival Corp. In this class action complaint filed by the experienced maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A., compensation is sought on behalf of all passengers aboard the Triumph's last cruise. If you or someone you know was a passenger aboard the Carnival Triumph's last cruise, call the attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. to find out about your legal rights and your options in joining this action complaint.
February 05, 2013
John Doe v. Carnival Corp., et al
Response to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
Passengers or crewmembers who are injured onboard a cruise ship often have difficulty getting quick, competent, and adequate medical care. Sometimes, their injuries can be made worse by negligent medical care administered by cruise ship medical personnel or substandard medical equipment in shipboard medical facilities. If you or someone you know were injured an a cruise and received negligent medical care, it is important to contact an experienced maritime lawyer like those at Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. The law regarding negligent medical care onboard cruise ships is complicated and challenging. Our knowledgeable maritime attorneys are on the cutting edge of this field and work to ensure recovery despite the legal obstacles that stand in the way. One of those obstacles includes the jurisdictional challenges posed by shipboard doctors and nurses. Although many regular personal injury lawyers may claim that they can handle your cruise ship injury case, in order to ensure that your rights are protected and that you receive the maximum recovery possible for your case, it is critical to seek the help of an experienced maritime lawyer.
January 18, 2013
In re: the Petition/Complaint of Libertad 54 Ltd, as owner of the S/V Libertad
Response to Motion to Dismiss
Injuries can happen on all types of vessels, including private yachts. In this case, two crewmembers on a private yacht were injured when a winch mal-functioned. Yacht crewmembers face difficulties that may not be an issue with crewmembers for larger shipping companies. Often times employees working on yacths are subject to jurisdictional challenges and limitation actions. If a crewmember working on a private yacht is injured, it is imperative that they seek the help of an experienced maritime attorney like those at Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A.
January 18, 2013
In re: the Petition/Complaint of Libertad 54 Ltd, as owner of the S/V Libertad
Response to Motion to Dismiss
The experienced maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. work to ensure that injured seaman and their loved ones are compensated for injuries sustained as part of their employment. In this response, Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. argue that a Plaintiff's spouse should be allowed to maintain a claim for loss of consortium.
January 03, 2013
Jane Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd, and Cruise Ship Excursions, Inc.
Complaint
When passengers are injured on a cruise, it is imperative that they contact an experienced maritime attorney for legal help. This is true even if the injury takes place during a cruise, but while the passenger is ashore. Maritime law may still apply to claims arising out of shoreside activities and hiring an experienced maritime attorney like those at Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. is critical to ensuring the best possible outcome in the case. In this complaint, a cruise ship passenger was injured in St. Thomas when the shore excursion vehicle she was riding in lost control and veered off the road.
January 03, 2013
Jane Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd, and Cruise Ship Excursions, Inc.
Notice of Appearance
At Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A., our client's cases all receive personal attention from the firm's senior attorneys. Our experienced maritime attorneys work as a team to ensure that each case gets the attention it needs to ensure fair results for our clients.
December 26, 2012
John Doe, as personal representative of the estate of Jane Doe, deceased v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., et al
Motion to Compel Discovery
As active litigators, the team at Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. has experience at all phases of personal injury claims. One such stage is the discovery process. In this motion to compel better responses, our maritime attorneys ask the Court to order defendants to provide more information that is critical to the Plaintiff's lawsuit. By working to ensure that our client's obtain all necessary discovery in their cases, we ensure that our clients obtain fair results.
December 12, 2012
John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 v. MT Marida Marguerite Schiffahrts, et al
Response to Motion to Dismiss
With piracy on the rise, seaman on commercial shipping vessels are finding themselves in increasingly dangerous situations. The experienced maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. know how to protect the rights of seafarers if they become the victims of piracy while working at sea. In this case, our experienced maritime attorneys brought claims against a shipowner, who allegedly took a negligent course, causing these crewmembers to be kidnapped by pirates. In this memorandum of law, our attorneys fight against a defendant's attempt to avoid the jurisdiction of U.S. Courts.
December 06, 2012
John Doe v. Carnival Corp., et al
Motion to Take Jurisdictional Discovery and Stay a Ruling on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
If you receive negligent medical care on a cruise ship, there can be significant legal hurdles to overcome before receiving compensation for your injuries. The maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. are experienced at fighting to protect passenger and crewmember rights in cases involving medical negligence at sea.
December 04, 2012
Jane Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., a Liberian Corporation
Complaint
Our experienced maritime attorneys regularly handle cases against all of the major cruise lines for accidents aboard their ships. In this case, a client was injured after sliping and falling if a cafe area aboard a Royal Caribbean ship.
December 04, 2012
Jane Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., a Liberian Corporation
Notice of Filing Proposed Order Scheduling Mediation
At Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A., our experienced maritime attorneys work to obtain our the best results possible, no matter what stage of litigation a case is in. One common tool used to reach a successful resolution for our client's is mediation. Our maritime lawyers are highly experienced with the mediation process and often obtain positive outcomes for our clients through mediation. This ultimately saves injured persons valuable time that would otherwise be spent in court.
November 15, 2012
John Doe v. Carnival Corp., et al
Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion To Dismiss
Some dangers on modern cruise ships are not readily apparent to passengers or crewmembers. One such danger is substandard medical care that sick or injured persons can receive from negligent doctors onboard a cruise ship. When a passenger or crewmember becomes sick or injured on a cruise, they often go to the ship's medical facility. Just as in landbased hospitals, they can receive sub-standard medical care from onboard doctors that can worsen their injury or illness and potentially lead to a life threatening condition. If this happens to a passenger or crewmember it is vital that you contact an experienced maritime attorney who can help you navigate the legal issues surrounding medical mal-practice on cruise ships. In this response in opposition to a motion to dismiss, our experienced maritime attorneys fight to protect the rights of passenger who allegedly received negligent medical care onboard a Carnival vessel.
November 09, 2012
Portnof v. Tura Turizm
Motion for Entry of Default Judgment
Shore excursion providers who challenge the jurisdiction of courts in the United States, must still file a responsive pleading to a complaint, or face the entry of a default judgment. In this case, a shore excursion provider failed to respond to a Plaintiff's complaint in the time required by the federal rules of civil procedure. Accordingly, our experienced maritime attorneys moved the court for entry of default judgment.
November 07, 2012
Portnof v. Tura Turizm
Entry of Default
Passengers injured on a shore excursion overseas may not realize that their claims will face jurisdictional challenges from shore excursion providers. Our experienced maritime attorneys pursue shore excursion providers no matter where they are to protect your legal rights.
October 28, 2012
John Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
Pre-hearing Brief in Arbitration Trial
Our experienced maritime attorneys are prepared to fight for our client's rights whether it be in Court or in alternative dispute resolution. In this pre-hearing brief, our lawyers fully brief a client's claim in preparation for arbitration with the International Center for Dispute Resolution.
October 26, 2012
John Doe v. Carnival Corp., et al
Notice and Agreement
Often times, the most important thing our experienced maritime attorneys can bring to your case is their ability to negotiate and reach reasonable agreements with all parties involved. In this notice of filing and agreement between the parties, our experienced maritime attorneys reached an agreement with the Medical Defendants in a cruise ship injury case. This agreement persuaded the Defendants to drop their challenge to the Plaintiff's service of a summons.
October 24, 2012
RCCL v. JOHN DOE and JANE DOE v. NINO ABARQUEZ and RAMON MUSNGI
Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion To Dismiss
When passengers are injured at sea, their claims are governed by maritime law. It is important to hire an experienced maritime attorney who understand the intracacies of this body of law when pursuing your claim. In this case, a passenger was injured when riding on a jet ski at Royal Caribbean's private destination. Royal Caribbean filed a limitation of liability seeking to limit the Plaintiff's damages to the value of the jet ski. Our attorneys filed a counter-claim and opposed Royal Caribbean's attempt to dispose of the Plaintiff's claims.
October 23, 2012
John Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
Joint Trial Stipulation
Our experienced maritime attorneys handle cases in State and Federal Court, as well as in binding arbitrations. Often times crewmembers and/or passengers are required to arbitrate their claims against shipowners pursuant to clauses in employment or ticket contracts. When this happens, it is important to select a law firm comfortable with alternative dispute resolution. The experienced maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman have handled numerous arbitrations on behalf of injured persons.
October 22, 2012
John Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
Motion to Compel
At Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A., our experienced team of maritime lawyers take time to ensure that all of our cases are prepared for trial. In this case involving an injured seafarer in binding arbitration, our lawyers ask the tribunal to compel the production of witness names in order to guarantee that our client is not subject to unfair surprise during trial proceedings.
October 16, 2012
Jane Doe v. Carnival Corp., LISANDRA S.A.- OPERATED BY FURY DE MEXICO S.A. De C.V./ FURY CATAMARANS COZUMEL and/or XYZ CORPORATION(S)
Complaint
Cruise ship passengers are often injured not while on the cruise ship, but instead while partaking in one of the many shore excursions offered by the cruise line. If you are injured while on a shore excursion, it is critical that you contact an experienced maritime attorney to ensure that your rights are protected. The attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. have decades of experience handling shore excursion injury cases and will work to make sure that an injured passenger receives fair and adequate compensation from all culpable parties involved.
October 16, 2012
John Doe v. Star Clippers, Ltd. Corp., et al
Complaint
Our experienced maritime attorneys actively litigate in both state and federal courts to protect the rights of passengers and crewmembers injured at sea and on shore. In this complaint, a star clippers crewmember was injured when he was asked to repair a galley food elevator. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff's injuries were caused by Star Clipper's failure to take proper safety precautions before and during the repair work.
October 01, 2012
Teresa Doe as parent and natural Guardian of Jane Doe v. Carnival Corp
Complaint
Our maritime and admiralty lawyers are experienced in handling cases of sexual assaults at sea. When families go on vacation, they often do not realize that crimes happen aboard cruise ships at an alarming rate. If you or someone you know is a victim of a crime at sea contact the attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. In this case, a mother is bringing suit on behalf of her daughter for a sexual assault committed by a Carnival crew member and our attorneys have filed suit in the Southern District of Florida.
September 26, 2012
Jane Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
Complaint
Passengers injured at sea should take great care to preserve evidence regading the facts of their injury. In this case, a passenger was injured when a railing she leaned on gave way in the theater onboard Royal Caribbean's ship. This passenger spoke with witnesses to the accident and found out that the broken railing had been reported to the ship's maintenance personnel the day before, but it was not fixed.
September 24, 2012
John Doe v. Lake Front Group, Ltd.
Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for leave to Amend Answer and Affirmative Defenses
Our experienced injury attorneys actively litigate developments in maritime law. In this response in opposition to a motion to amend, the Plaintiff argues that the antiquated doctrine of the primary duty rule should not be allowed by the Court as it is a disfavored and archaic approach not largely followed by modern courts.
September 21, 2012
Jane Doe as personal representative for the Estate of John Doe v. NCL Bahamas, Ltd.
Response to Motion to Dismiss
When passengers fall ill or are injured on a cruise ship, they often seek treatment from the ship's onboard medical facility. Unfortunately, that facility can be ill equiped to handle emergencies. The medical staff working on the ship is usually not licensed in the United States, but rather in a foreign jurisdiction with less rigorous standards. What this can lead to is substandard medical care and a worsening of the passengers condition. In this case, a male passenger suffered from a severe allergic reaction after accidentally ingesting nuts during a meal. The ship's medical team failed to perform a life-saving trachiotomy on the passenger who passed away shortly thereafter. Passengers may be surprised to learn that cruise lines are typically not held responsible for the negligent medical care provided by their doctors. In this case, NCL is seeking to escape liability for their doctor's failure to perform a life-saving medical procedure. Our experienced maritime lawyers argue on behalf of the passenger that the law should be changed to hold cruise lines accountable for negligent medical care provided by their employees.
September 10, 2012
John Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Dr. Carlos Jaramillo, Doctor Doe, and Nurse Doe
Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion To Dismiss
This brief reflects our firms continued efforts to improve passenger safety and care aboard ships at sea. In this case, a passenger received substandard medical care from a Royal Caribbean physician onboard one of its ships. As a result the passenger lost his finger. Our experienced maritime lawyers filed suit against Royal Caribbean and the doctor onboard its ship.
September 07, 2012
Jane Doe v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.
Complaint
In this complaint filedin the Southern District of Florida, our experienced maritime lawyers bring a claim against celebrity crusies for an injury sustained by a passenger. In this case, a passenger was injured when she missed a step and fell, injuring herself. This passenger fell because Celebrity Cruises allowed the step to fall into disrepair by not fixing a lighting strip which marked the edge of the step.
September 04, 2012
John Doe and Jane Doe, et al v. Norwegian Seafarers Union
Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion to Remand
In this case, Plaintiff seafarers have brought a declaratory action against their union, the Norwegian Seafarers Union. The lawsuit alleges that the Norwegian Seafarers Union does not represent the interest of its members. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have asked the Court to declare that they are not represented by the Defendant and that all contracts negotiated by the Defendant on the seafarers behalf are null and void. The Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in Florida state court and the Defendant removed the case to federal court. In this reply, the Plaintiffs explain the reason that the case was improperly removed and why it should be sent back to state court.
August 28, 2012
John and Jane Doe v. Carnival Corp., Explora Caribe, and Pelicanos Tours
Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
Many of our clients are injured not on a cruise ship, but rather in a port of call when going on a shore excursion. Passengers often do not understand that the shore excursions advertised and sold on their cruises, are partially operated by third party vendors. This can lead to unsuspecting passengers going on tours with poorly maintained or broken equipment and inexperienced tour guides. In this case, a young couple was injured on a tour in Cozumel, Mexico, when the three wheeled vehicle they were driving as part of a shore excursion malfunctioned, causing it to flip over in a ditch on the side of the road. Our team of trial attorneys brought suit in the Southern District of Florida against the shore excursion operators and Carnival for negligence. Carnival moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' lawsuit, claiming that Carnival cannot legally be held responsible for the injuries. In this response, our experienced maritime attorneys argue that Carnival misinterprets the law governing their culpability and the Plaintiffs' claims. Cruise lines regularly argue that they are not responsible for injuries that happen on shore excursions. If you are injured while on a shore excursion, it is important to hire an experienced maritime attorney like those of Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. who understand the law governing your rights.
August 28, 2012
John Doe v. Svitzer Americas, LTD. and Seabulk Transport, Inc.
Motion to Stay
In this seaman's personal injury case, the Defendant shipowner and employer have moved to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Foreign ship owners often try to evade the power of U.S. Court's by claiming they lack sufficient ties with the United States to justify bringing the lawsuit in the chosen forum. When warranted, our experienced maritime attorneys ask the court to refrain from ruling on that issue until the Plaintiff is allowed to obtain evidence from the Defendant as to what contacts it has with the U.S. In this reply, our experienced maritime attorneys argue that the ruling should be stayed and the Plaintiff should be allowed to take discovery on this issue.
August 17, 2012
Jane Doe v. Celebrity Cruises, Tura Turizm, and XYZ Corporation
Complaint
Injuries can happen in a number of different ways, both on and off a cruise ship. In this complaint filed in the Southern District of Florida, a passenger was injured on a tour bus while on a shore excursion in Turkey. Many times injured persons are daunted by the prospect of pursuing an overseas Defendant, but our experienced maritime attorneys can help. Whether your injury happened on or off the ship, our attorneys can protect your rights and pursue your case all the way through trial.
August 10, 2012
Plaintiff v. NCL Bahamas Ltd.
Initial Appellate Brief
Our experienced maritime attorneys are prepared to fight for our clients through all stages of litigation. Thanks to the size of our firm and our in house appelate counsel, we often represent clients in Courts of appeal, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In this case, our firm appealed the decision to force one of our clients to arbitrate his claims outside of Court. The ability to appeal these decisions not only helps our clients win their cases, but also allows us to create positive law for all seafarers and future clients.
August 09, 2012
Plaintiff v. Celebrity Cruises
Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
Many of our clients are crewmembers who work aboard cruise ships. Unfortunately, many of these crewmembers are taken advantage of by cruise lines who exploit loopholes in the law to increase profits, often at a crewmembers expense. One of the main vehicles for doing this in the past decade has been by placing arbitration clauses in crewmember contracts. Often times these crewmembers have no idea they are subject to arbitration and barred from bringing claims in U.S. Courts. In this case, a seafarer had been denied his full wages and sought remediation in U.S. Court, only to have his claim sent to arbitration pursuant to his contract. In this motion, our experienced maritime attorneys fight to get this client his day in Court and demonstrate that the arbitration he was subjected to was a scam aimed at depriving him of his rights.
August 09, 2012
Plaintiff v. Celebrity Cruises
Response in Opposition to Motion for Sanctions
Our maritime attorneys are experienced in all areas of practice including pre-trial litigation, trial, appeals, mediation, and arbitration. No matter where your case goes, the team of attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. are prepared to advocate for your rights. In this case, a plaintiff was forced to arbitrate his case due to a collective bargaining agreement. After arbitration, our attorneys filed suit in federal court to vacate an unfair arbitration award. Celebrity attempted to block this action by demanding sanctions, claiming that the Plaintiff's case had no merit. In this response, our attorneys demonstrate to the court that the case has merit and that Celebrity's motion for sanctions is hollow and innappropriate.
August 08, 2012
Plaintiffs v. Norwegian Seafarer's Union
Motion to Remand
In this motion to remand, the Plaintiffs are present and future seafarers who are "represented" by the Norwegian Seafarers Union. Plaintiffs filed suit to declare that the Norwegian Seafarers Union does not in fact represent them and that all collective bargaining agreements negotiated by the Norwegian Seafarers Union are void. The Defendant removed the case to federal court, and in this motion the Plaintiffs argue that the case should be remanded back to state court to preserve the Plaintiffs' choice of forum.
August 08, 2012
Plaintiff v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction
One of the most common challenges faced by passengers and cremembers is jurisdiction. Cruise lines and shipping companies argue that because your accident happened overseas, you are not a U.S. citizen, the defendant is not a U.S. citizen, or that a contract calls for a different venue, that the Court does not have power over the subject matter of the case or the Defendant itself. Jurisdictional challenges can bring an end to your case before it has had the chance to even get underway. That is why it is important to hire an experienced maritime attorney, like the attorneys of Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. Our lawyers regularly face and defeat jurisdictional challenges brought by defendants like shore excursion operators, cruise ship doctors, and foreign shipping companies. In this memorandum to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, our maritime attorneys fight for a crewmembers right to have his day in court.
July 26, 2012
Plaintiff v. Maersk Lines Limited
Reply in Support
Our maritime attorneys fight to achieve the maximum possible recovery for our clients throughout all stages of litigation, even after a trial and a successful verdict. In this case, our attorneys won a jury verdict in favor of an injured seaman who worked on a Maersk container vessel. However, the jury also reduced the Plaintiff's award by comparative fault. The plaintiff asked the court to set aside the jury's finding of comparative fault and to award the Plaintiff his full damages.
July 02, 2012
Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Ricardo Andino
Order
In this case a cruise ship passenger was injured while participating in a jet ski tour on Royal Caribbean's private island, Coco Cay. Royal Caribbean filed a limitation of liability action, seeking to limit the amount of damagesthe Plaintiff could recover. As part of that action, the passenger filed a claim against an RCCL employee who was involved in the jet ski accident. This instructor resided on Royal Caribbean's private island and sought to avoid being served with process in this lawsuit. Royal Caribbean's attorneys filed a motion on the third party defendant's to quash service, stating that the Plaintiff had not complied with procedural service requirements. Plaintiff argued that everything that could reasonably be done to serve the third party had been done, and that due process rights were not at issue as the third party already had notice of the lawsuit. The Southern District of Florida agreed and denied the Defendant's Motion to Quash Service.
June 26, 2012
Plaintiffs v. Norwegian Seafarer's Union
Complaint
In this complaint, our maritime attorneys ask a Florida Court to declare that the norwegian seafarers union does not represent the Plaintiff seafarers and that the collective bargaining agreement governing the Plaintiffs' employment is void.
June 21, 2012
Haughey v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., et al
Order
Our maritime attorneys fight for passenger rights in both federal and state court houses. In this order out of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Miami, FL, the Honorable, J. Leesfield denied Royal Caribbean's attempt to dispose of the Plaintiff's case prior to trial. As a result, the injured passenger will have her day in court and Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A.'s team of experienced trial attorneys will present her case to a jury.
June 20, 2012
Presentation to the Admiralty Law Section Committee Meeting 2012
Presentation Outline
On June 20th, 2012, two of our partners, Jason Margulies and Michael Winkleman, gave a presentation to the Admiralty Law Section Committee of the Florida Bar. As experienced and well respected admiralty attorneys, Mr. Margulies and Mr. Winkleman presented an update on the state of maritime personal injury claims, including a recent verdict obtained on behalf of the Plaintiff in our firm's case of Skye v. Maersk Lines Limited.
June 15, 2012
Skye v. Maersk Lines Limited
Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment
Our experienced maritime trial attorneys work hard to ensure that our clients always get a fair and positive result. This includes ensuring that the judgment awarded to our client is fair in light of the evidence. In this motion, our attorneys fight to increase the judgment received by an injured seaman who worked aboard a Maersk shipping vessel. Despite winning a jury verdict at trial, the Plaintiff had his total award reduced by comparative fault. In this motion, the Plaintiff asks the Court to set aside the jury's finding so the Plaintiff can receive his full damages.
June 13, 2012
Warren King, et al. v. NCL Bahamas, Ltd.
Response in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment
Our attorney's have fought for seaman's rights since 1971. This includes making sure that seaman working on cruise ships receive fair compensation. In this case the Plaintiffs, a group of room stewards, allege that Norwegian Cruise Lines enacted a scheme to deprive its employees of the entirety of their wages. The Plaintiffs seek those wages and penalty wages to which they are entitled under the Seaman's Wage Act. The Defendant argues that the claims presented by the Plaintiffs are not cognizable under the law. In response the Plaintiffs point out that in an indentical case, the Southern District of Florida has already found that the claims are valid. Additionally, the Plaintiffs lay out the evidence that supports their claims, proving that an issue of fact remains for determination at trial.
May 18, 2012
Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Ricardo Andino
Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Increase Limitation Fund
In this reply brief, our experienced maritime lawyers have petitioned the Court to increase the funds available for recovery after a cruiseship passenger was injured on a jetski shore excursion. After the injury, Royal Caribbean filed a limitation of liability arguing that the funds recoverable by the Plaintiff should be limited by the maritime law doctrine of limitation of liability. In this reply brief, our attorneys argue that the funds available to the Plaintiff should be increased by virtue of the Flotilla Doctrine. By arguing for the application of the Flotilla Doctrine our firm aimed to increase the funds available for recovery to the value of the cruise ship itself and all other vessels making up Royal Caribbean's fleet on coco-cay.
May 17, 2012
Summers v. NCL, et al.
Response in Opposition
In this response in Opposition to a Defendant's Motion, our experienced maritime attorneys argue that the Defendant cruise line should be sanctioned for conduct that has delayed the case and been prejudicial to the Plaintiff who passed away aboard a cruise ship.
April 23, 2012
Ortega v. Carnival Corp. et al
Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
When injured aboard a cruise sihp, passengers often seek the help of the medical staff aboard the vessel. Unfortunately, passengers often receive substandard care from the cruise ship medical staff. This substandard care can worsen your condition or create an entirely new problem. Although long standing precedent puts a hurdle in the way of passengers injured by medical negligence aboard ship, our attorneys fight to protect the rights of passengers who receive substandard care. In this response to a motion to dismiss, our experienced maritime attorneys argue against the doctors and nurses who provided poor medical care to our client, to ensure that they will be held responsible.
April 11, 2012
Omasta v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd
Complaint
For many passengers, the various amenities and attactions onboard modern cruise liners can be the highlight of their trip. Unfortunately, these attractions can sometimes be dangerously constructed or poorly controlled resulting in injuries to passengers who thought they were in good hands. When this happens our experienced maritime attorneys can help passengers receive compensation for the injuries they sustained. In this complaint filed in the Southern District of Florida, a passenger used the new zip-line on Royal Caribbean's Oasis of the Seas. As she approached the end of the zip-line, her foot slammed into the concrete landing area causing her serious injury. Our attorneys brought a claim on behalf of this passenger based on the negligent design, construction, operation, and oversight of the zip-line as well as a lack of instruction to passengers using the zip-line attraction.
March 28, 2012
William Skye v. Maersk Lines Limited
Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment
In this order from the Southern District of Florida, the Court has sided with Plaintiff's argument that the injuries he sustained while working for Maersk Line Limited are legitimate claims that must be brought before a jury. The order in this Jones Act and Unseaworthiness case is noteworthy for recognizing that chronic sleep deprivation and fatigue could be considered physical stresses that lead to injuries.
March 15, 2012
Aronson v. Celebrity Cruises Inc., et al
Response to Motion to Dismiss
In this case an individual was hurt on a shore excursion he purhcased through a cruise line. Defendant Celebrity Cruises moved to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failing to state a cause of action on which relief can be granted. The basis of the Defendant's argument is that Celebrity owed the Plaintiff no duty of care because the injury happened off of its ship. Celebrity also argues that it cannot be held responsible for the actions of its shore excursion partner or in the alternative that the Plaintiff signed a waiver. In this response in opposition, Plaintiff argues that the law requires that the Defendant exercise reasonable care under the circumstances beyond the confines of the ship. Additionally, the Plaintiff demonstrates that as pleaded in his complaint, the cruise line and shore excursion entity share a relationship which imparts ones liability to the other. The Plaintiff also argues that Defendant's motion must be denied because whether or not the Plaintiff understood the waiver he signed is a question properly left for a jury.
March 15, 2012
Carabatsos v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
Complaint
In this complaint filed in the Southern District of Florida our attorneys allege that Royal Caribbean failed to maintain a reasonably safe flooring surface on its vessel in the area of our client's accident. As a result of the negligence of Royal Caribbean our client slipped and fell, sustaining serious injuries to his leg which required surgical repair. Unfortunately these accidents are not uncommon and if you are injured in a slip and fall on a cruise ship you should seek help from an experienced maritime lawyer. Call the offices of Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. for a free consultation.
February 29, 2012
William Skye v. Maersk Lines Limited
Motion in Limine
As this client's case moved forward to trial, our attorneys filed a motion in limine to preclude the introduction of certain evidence by the Defendant. The Plaintiff provided evidence of numerous violations of federal laws. Accordingly, in this motion in limine the Plaintiff argued that as a result, the Defendant is not permitted to introduce any evidence of the Plaintiff's comparative negligence. The Plaintiff has also argued that pursuant to admiralty law, the Defendant should not be permitted to argue or introduce evidence that another party's negligence caused the Plaintiff's injuries. Lastly, the Plaintiff argued that the Defendant should not be permitted to offer evidence or make argument that the Plaintiff's claims are not legitimate.
February 17, 2012
William Skye v. Maersk Lines Limited
Response to Motion for Summary Judgment
At Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. we represent injured crewmembers from all types of ships, including commercial shipping vessels. In this case filed in federal court, a crew member aboard a commericial container ship alleges he suffered a physical injury to his heart and contracted a long term heart condition that was caused by working conditions on a Maersk vessel. Maersk attempted to obtain judgment in its favor by arguing that the Plaintiff's injuries are not compensable under current maritime personal injury law. In this response, our attorneys argue that the Plaintiff's claims are compensable under the current law and that the evidence supports a ruling allowing the Plaintiff to move forward to trial. Additionally, the Plaintiff argues that Maersk was negligent per se for violating federal laws that restrict the amount of hours a seafarer is allowed to work.
February 10, 2012
Milena Efremova v. Carnival Corporation, et al.
Response to Motion to Dismiss
In this case a seafarer was injured while working aboard the Defendant Carnival's vessel. The Plaintiff alleged causes of action under the Jones Act, Unseaworthiness, Doctrine of Maintenance and Cure, and the Seaman's Wage Act. Multiple parties were named as Defendants in the case. In their Motion, the Defedants argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction over them and that they had not been properly served. In this response, attorney Carlos Llinas counters these arguments by demonstrating that the Defendants waived their right to challenging service and failed to make an adequate argument regarding jurisdiction.
February 07, 2012
Heather Morris v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
Order on Motion to Dismiss
This Order from the Federal Court in the Southern District of Florida denies Defendant Royal Caribbean's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim under a theory of strict products liability. The Plaintiff was injured while riding Royal Caribbean's Flow Rider, a surfing simulator onboard the Oasis of the Seas. The Plaintiff claimed that since Royal Caribbean had modified its Flow Rider to fit on the Oasis of the Seas, Royal could be held liable as if it were a manufacturer of the product. Royal Caribbean Argued that it could not be held liable under a theory of products liability. In this Order, the court has sided with the Plaintiff's argument and denied Royal Caribbean's motion to dismiss.
January 12, 2012
Heather Morris v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
Response to Motion to Dismiss
In this case a passenger on Royal Caribbean's Oasis of the Seas was injured while using the vessel's Flow Rider attraction. This surfing simulator had been modified in order to fit on Royal Caribbean's ship. The Plaintiff contends that this modification made the Flow Rider inherently dangerous, leading directly to her injury. Plaintiff brought a claim based on negligence and a strict products liability action. The Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's strict products liability action, arguing that such a claim was not cognizable under general maritime law. In this response the Plaintiff answers those claims and demonstrates to the Court that in the present case, Royal Caribbean was not just the provider of a cruise, but also the manufacturer of a product and could thus be held liable under a theory of strict products liability for the deficiencies of that product.
December 20, 2011
Franklin Vasquez v. Yii Shipping Company
Federal Appellate Brief
In this case a crewmember was injured while working onboard the Defendant's ship in the Bahamas. When the crewmember attempted to sue his employer in the United States, the employer moved to compel the seafarer to arbitrate his claims. After fighting this effort to force arbitration at the trial court level unsuccesfully Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. took the case up to the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to argue for reversal and a change in the existing law.
December 07, 2011
Jane Doe (a minor) v. Oceania Cruises, Inc.
Reply Brief in Motion to Amend to Add Punitive Damages
In this reply brief, attorney Carlos Llinas advocates on behalf of a minor sexually assaulted on a cruise ship. Due to the outrageous nature of the case and recent United States Supreme Court precedent, Mr. Llinas asked the court to allow the Plaintiff to seek punitive damages. The Plaintiff's request was later granted, allowing the Plaintiff to seek punitive damages against the Defendant in this case.
December 06, 2011
Greenway Paulraj v. Crystal Cruises, Inc.
Initial Appellate Brief
This brief argues the merits of allowing a seaman to pursue his injury claims in United States Federal Court. The Defendant moved to dismiss the seaman's claim based on an arbitration clause in his contract. Attorney Carlos Felipe Llinas Negret, demonstrates in this brief that arbitration is an illusory remedy at best, and that compelling arbitration would deny the Plaintiff of his remedies under U.S. law. By demonstrating to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that it is boud by its former decision and Supreme Court precedent, the Plaintiff argues for the reversal of the lower court decision.
December 06, 2011
Sandra Rinker v. Carnival Corporation and Ramanbhai Patel
Order on Motion to Dismiss
In this order issued by the Southern District of Florida, the court has denied Carnival's effort to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff.
December 05, 2011
Giovanna Settimi Caraffa vs. Carnival Corp.
Response to Motion for Summary Judgment
In this seaman's jones act and wrongful death claim, the Plaintiff has alleged that the seaman died as a result of exposure to asbestos on Carnival vessels. Carnival moved for judgment on the pleadings claiming that the Plaintiff had not produced enough evidence of asbestos exposure to allow the case to be brought to trial. In this response, the Plaintiff counters Defendant's arguments by explaining to the court the appropriate body of maritime law that applies to this case and by demonstrating that the evidence produced by the Plaintiff meets the standards required by that body of law.
December 05, 2011
Giovanna Settimi Caraffa vs. Carnival Corp.
Response to Motion for Summary Judgment
In this case of a seaman injured by exposure to asbestos. Defendant Carnival moved for summary judgment claiming that the decedents lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations. In this response, the Plaintiff goes through the applicable law and the evidence demonstrating that the decedents claim is not time barred.
November 28, 2011
Sandra Rinker v. Carnival Corporation and Ramanbhai Patel
Response to Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff in this case was injured when she contracted meningitis onboard Carnival's vessel. If properly treated her injuries may have been slight, however, Carnival failed to evacuate the Plaintiff, and failed to properly treat the Plaintiff, and delayed her from receiving proper treatment. As a result Plaintiff suffered severe injuries. Plaintiff sued Carnival and Carnival's physician onboard their ship in the Southern District of Florida. In this response Plaintiff demonstrates that the record facts and the applicable law preclude the Court from granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
October 20, 2011
Sandra Rinker v. Carnival Corporation and Ramanbhai Patel
Order Granting Protective Order and Quashing subpoena
In this order from the Southern District of Florida, the court has granted Plaintiff's Motion for a Protective Order. Carnival chose to depose Plaintiff's husband on a day that he was unavailable do to other obligations. Rather than work with the Plaintiff, Carnival moved forward and attempted to serve a subpoena on Plaintiff's husband. In order to protect the Plaintiff from undue burden, our attorneys filed a motion with the court, seeking to quash the subpoena and prevent the deposition. This order grants Plaintiff's requested relief.
October 05, 2011
April Gentry v. Carnival Corp., et. al.
Order Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
In this order, the Southern District of Florida largely denies Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, in a case where a passenger was injured while participating in a shore excursion. The court allowed the Plaintiff to maintain her causes of action for injuries she sustained while on the shore excursion, because it found that the Plaintiff had properly pled causes of action for negligence, joint venture, and apparent agency. Our attorneys regularly litigate cases on behalf of passengers injured on shore excursions overseas in order to hold both the cruise line and the shore excursion companies responsible for injuries they inflict through their negligence.
September 30, 2011
Lindo v. NCL Bahamas, Ltd.
Amicus Brief
The attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, actively advocate on behalf of passengers and crewmembers aggrieved by ship owners. We take it upon ourselves to help shape the law in a way that protects individual's rights. This is so important to the firm that Partner Michael Winkleman recently filed an amicus brief with the Eleventh Circuit Court of appeals. In this brief Mr. Winkleman explains to the court the dire necessity of protecting existing law so that cruise lines can be prevented from forcing their employees to arbitrate disputes under foreign law. Mr. Winkleman's brief explains the implications of this, including denial of access to U.S. courts, denial of rights under U.S. statutory law, and the deplorable conditions allowing this change would encourage at sea.
September 07, 2011
Lydia Rosenfeld v. Oceania Cruises, Inc.
Order Reversing and Remanding
In this opinion from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the appellate court has agreed with Plaintiff and reversed and remanded the decision of the District Court denying Plaintiff's motion for a new trial and refusing to allow Plaintiff's expert to testify at trial. The Eleventh Circuit found that the District Court abused its discretion in not allowing Plaintiff's expert to testify at trial and that this refusal was harmful to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the appellate court reversed and remanded the case to the District Court for new trial wherein Plaintiff's expert would be allowed to testify.
September 01, 2011
William C. Skye v. Maersk Line Limited Corp. d/b/a Maersk Line Limited
Response in Opposition to a Motion to Dismiss
In this response Plaintiff, an injured crewmember aboard a Maersk vessel, oppossed Defendant's efforts to dismiss his complaint. Defendant's motion centered around three seperate causes of action pled by Plaintiff, negligence, negligence per se, and unseaworthiness. Defendant argued that Plaintiff's claims were untimely and that Plaintiff should not be permitted to plead negligence and negligence per se as two seperate causes of action. Plaintiff responded with binding precedent to demonstrate that Defendant's arguments of timeliness were misplaced and should be denied. Plaintiff also responded that no binding precedent prohibited him from pleading his actions seperately, and that pleading seperately would be beneficial to the trier of fact.
August 11, 2011
Douglas Nelson v. The Crew Network Inc, et. al.
Reply in Support of Motion to Stay Pending Jurisdictional Discovery
In this Reply Plaintiff is responding to the arguments raised by the Defendants in their response to Plaintiff's original motion. Plaintiff reasserts his contention that the relief he has sought is the standard procedure in this Circuit and that binding precedent shows that he is entitled to jurisdictional discovery. Further Plaintiff demonstrates that his initial pleadings were sufficient to support personal jurisdiction, and that without the benefit of jurisdictional discovery it would be impossible to meaningfully respond to the Defendant's assertions.
July 13, 2011
Douglas Nelson v. The Crew Network Inc, et. al.
Motion to Stay Pending Jurisdictional Discovery
This seaman brought his claim in the Southern District of Florida after being injured working aboard a vessel owned by Defendant(s). Defendant Trinity sought to have the case dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and the doctrine of forum non conveniens. In this motion the Plaintiff sought a stay on the ruling of Defendant's motion to dismiss until such time as jurisdictional discovery into the Defendant's ties with this forum has been completed. In support of its motion, Plaintiff cited numerous cases supporting the proposition that jurisdictional discovery is appropriate under such circumstances.
July 11, 2011
Michael Armando Cerda Yepez v. Regent Seven Seas Cruises
Motion to Stay
After the Defendant in this case moved for dismissal, asserting that the Southern District of Florida did not have jurisdiction over it, the Plaintiff moved the court for leave to take jurisdictional discovery. The present motion asks the court to stay the ruling on the Defendant's motion to dismiss until such time as the Plaintiff has had the opportunity to take discovery into the Defendant's ties with this forum. In support of this motion Plaintiff cited numerous cases demonstrating that discovery into personal jurisdiction is warranted in scenarious such as this.
July 08, 2011
Harry Olson v. Carnival Corp.
Order Staying Case Pending Completion of Jurisdictional Discovery
After Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff's case for lack of personal jurisdiction, Plaintiff moved the Southern District for a stay on the ruling until the completion of jurisdictional discovery. This motion went unopposed and the Court entered an order staying a ruling on the motion to dismiss so Plaintiff could conduct discovery into the Defendant's ties with this forum.
June 20, 2011
Vidhaya Balachander as personal representative of the estate of Sripathi Balachander vs. NCL Bahamas ltd. and Rey Ponteras
Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
This case resulted from a Plaintiff who suffered injuries that later caused his death when he visited an island resort in the Bahamas as part of his NCL cruise vacation. Plaintiff alleged that the injuries were the fault of NCL and sued NCL both in their capacity as a ship operator and a resort owner by utilizing the federal court's pendent jurisdiction to hear both the maritime claims and the claims arising under Florida state law. NCL sought to dismiss several of Plaintiff's causes of action. In this response the Plaintiff asserts the important distinctions that result from suing NCL in two different capacities. Plaintiff also argued that she met the pleading standards necessary to maintain a cause of action and that NCL's other grounds for dismissal were really questions of fact for a jury to decide.
June 17, 2011
Abraham Wallace et. al. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.
Motion in Limine
In this motion in limine a group of Plaintiffs comprised of former Norwegian Cruise Lines cabin stewards seeks to preclude the use of certain evidence by NCL at their trial. Plaintiffs allege that NCL instituted a policy whereby cabin stewards were given more work than they could reasonably be expected to complete. As a result of this policy and with NCL's knowledge the Plaintiffs were forced to pay helpers to complete their jobs, causing them to lose a portion of their earned wages. To disprove this theory NCL has sought to introduce evidence of changed policies and videos. Plaintiffs point out that these changed policies and video evidence are derived from a period subsequent to their claims making it irrelevant for the purposes of this case. In support of this proposition the Plaintiffs cite the Court's order denying NCL's motion for summary judgment, wherein the Court expressed a similar sentiment.
June 10, 2011
Jane Doe as Mother and Natural Guardian of Minor Daughter vs. Oceania Cruises, Inc.
Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Leave to Amend Answer
In this order from the United States District Court the Judge has denied Defendant Oceania Cruises motion for leave to amend its answer to add a defense. In response to Defendant's motion Plaintiff argued that the Athens Convention Defense which Oceania sought to add to its answer in an effort to limit its liability was insufficient on its face and should therefore not be allowed. The Court agreed with the Plaintiff and ruled that the Athens convention allowed no such limitation for liability arising out of the intentional torts committed by the Defendant or its employees.
June 03, 2011
Vidhaya Balachander as personal representative of the estate of Sripathi Balachander vs. NCL Bahamas ltd. and Rey Ponteras
Order Denying Motion to Quash Service of Process and to Dismiss
In this order from the Southern District of Florida the Court has denied both Defendant's motion to quash service of process and Defendant's motion to dismiss. Defendant argued in his motion that Plaintiff's attempt to serve him with process were insufficient. The Court sided with the Plaintiff and found that service of process had been properly made as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
May 31, 2011
Jane Doe as Mother and Natural Guardian of Minor Daughter vs. Oceania Cruises, Inc.
Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer
In this response in opposition to Defendant's motion to amend its answer to add an affirmative defense the Plaintiff offers convincing arguments to deny the requested relief. Defendant Oceania Cruises sought to limit its liability to the minor plaintiff for a sexual assault that occurred onboard their ship. Oceania argued that it should be allowed to avail itself of the liability limitations set forth in the Athens Convention. This limitation would cap the recovery available to the Plaintiff. Oceania claimed this right pursuant to a clause in its ticket contract. The Plaintiff argued that the court should deny the relief because the request was untimely, inapposite of established U.S. maritime law, and that its application would also be inconsistent with U.S. contract law.
May 10, 2011
June Bridgewater v. Carnival Corporation, Rapsody Tours, Charters & Cruise Limited, Dreamer Catamaran Cruises, and XYZ Corp.
Order Denying Defendants Partial Motion to Dismiss
In this order from the Southern District of Florida the Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss one count of the Plaintiff's complaint. The Defendants alleged that Plaintiff's claim as a third-party beneficiary was insufficient. After consideration, the Court denied the Defendants request and found that Plaintiff's complaint was sufficient and her allegations well pled.
May 09, 2011
Kaustubh Badkar vs. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.
Order
In this order the Southern District of Florida denied in part and granted in part the Defendant's motion to compel the arbitration of a seafarer's claims. Even though his contract and collective bargaining agreement called for arbitration, the Plaintiff argued he should not be compelled to arbitration because that would force him to waive his U.S. statutory rights. Ultimately the Southern District agreed and denied the defendant's motion as to all of the Plaintiff's U.S. statutory claims.
May 05, 2011
William C. Skye v. Maersk Line Limited Corp. d/b/a Maersk Line Limited
Complaint
This complaint was filed on behalf of a seaman working for a major line. The complaint alleges that the defendant violated various statutes by forcing the plaintiff to work long hours in harsh conditions. The plaintiff claims that the defendant's actions caused him to suffer injury to his heart and that this injury has prevented him from working in his chosen profession.
May 05, 2011
Abraham Wallace et. al. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.
Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene
This reply was written on behalf of numerous seafarers to support their motion to intervene in an already existing lawsuit being handled by Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. In this document the Plaintiffs respond to the arguments offered by the defense to prevent their intervention. The Plaintiffs claim that their intervention is timely and appropriate in this action. Through intervention these potential Plaintiffs can assure that their rights will not be affected by a lawsuit to which they are not a party.
April 29, 2011
Ricardo Maxwell v. NCL (Bahammas) Ltd.
Order Granting Motion for Remand
In this case against NCL, the Defendant cruise line removed this seaman's case from state court to federal court on the basis of an arbitration provision contained in the seaman's collective bargaining agreement and employment contract. The Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court, arguing that the arbitration provision was null and void and that the Plaintiff's Jones Act claim precluded the case from being removed to federal court. In this order the Honorable Judge Cook of the Southern District of Florida ruled that the arbitration clause was void as against public policy and that the case therefore should be remanded to state court. This order will help to preserve our clients right to a jury trial in the United States.
April 15, 2011
Nina Gibilaro v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., John Does (Ship's Doctor(s)) and Jane Does (Ship's Nurse(s))
Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint
In this response to a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff argues that she has properly pled the necessary facts and law to sustain a cause of action against Royal Caribbean Cruises for the negligence of its shipboard physician. This is an area of law in which Lipcon, Margulies, Alisa, & Winkleman have been at the forefront of the action advocating for passenger rights and safety.
April 13, 2011
Sandra Rinker and James Rinker Jr. v. Carnival Corporation, Ramanbhai Patel (Ship's doctor), Yolanda Dormehl (Ship's nurse), and Susan Law (Ship's nurse)
Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
In this action the Plaintiff has sued Defendant Carnival Corporation and the individual doctor and nurses responsible for her negligent medical care onboard a Carnival cruise ship. This is a challenging area of law and our attorneys are at the forefront advocating for the safety of cruise ship passengers. In this particular motion one of the Defendant nurses is arguing that the Court lacks jurisdiction over her and our attorneys are advocating that the Defendant has the requisite contacts with Florida to justify her being haled into court here.
April 12, 2011
Ventzislav Blagoev v. Regent Seven Seas Cruises
Seaman's Complaint Without the Prepayment of Costs
This Complaint was filed on behalf of a seaman against Regent Seven Seas Cruises for compensation due to the negligence of Regent, the unseaworthiness of their vessel, and their failure to adequately treat the Plaintiff's medical conditions.
April 06, 2011
Abraham Wallace et. al. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.
Plaintiff Intervenors Motion to Intervene
In this motion to intervene, fellow crew members of an already existing group of seaman pursuing a lawsuit for wrongfully withheld wages, are petitioning the Court for the right to join a case that is already underway. The petitioning crew members argue that their claims are so similar to those plaintiffs in the existing action that they would not be in the interests of justice and fairness to file separate lawsuits.
March 30, 2011
Sandra Rinker and James Rinker Jr. v. Carnival Corporation, Ramanbhai Patel (Ship's doctor), Yolanda Dormehl (Ship's nurse), and Susan Law (Ship's nurse)
Order
In this order the Southern District of Florida ruled that Carnival should pay for the costs of discovery relating to shipboard medical personnel's provision of medical care in Florida ports.
March 25, 2011
Sandra Rinker and James Rinker Jr. v. Carnival Corporation, Ramanbhai Patel (Ship's doctor), Yolanda Dormehl (Ship's nurse), and Susan Law (Ship's nurse)
Redacted Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant Ramanbhai Patel
In this motion the Plaintiff has asked the Court for sanctions against a Defendant who allegedly lied under oath and in sworn statements in order to frustrate the efforts of the Plaintiff and the Court.
March 14, 2011
Nancy Thomas v. Carnival Corporation, Doctor Elwi Sayed-Tanani, Nurse Mayam Wardee, Nurse Ninette Williams, Nurse Cheryl MacFarlane, Doctor Doe and Nurse Doe 1 through 3
Motion to Impress Service
After attempting to have the Plaintiff's service of process quashed for the individually named Defendants, this motion sought the Court's authority to have service impressed on these Defendants. Plaintiff's argued that service of process should rightfully be impressed on the Defendants since the Plaintiff had served them in the manner most likely to afford them notice and an opportunity to be heard.
February 14, 2011
Joan Bellino v. Classic Cruises Holdings S. DE R.L. d.b.a Regent Seven Seas Cruise
Motion to Compel Defendants Better Responses to Discovery and In Camera Inspection of Defendant's Pr
In this motion the Plaintiff has sought the Court's aid in compelling Defendant Seven Seas Cruise Lines to appropriately answer Plaintiff's discovery requests. In furtherance of this effort the Plaintiff has made argument as to the objections of the Defense.
February 02, 2011
Andrzej Gola v. SMT Ship Management & Transport Ltd. and Transatlantic Ship Management Ltd.
Points of Claim in Arbitration
In this document a seaman has filed a complaint in an arbitral proceedings against a defendant cruise line for his injury while working aboard the defendant's vessel. The attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman pursue crew member claims in state and federal court as well as in arbitration. Whenever a seaman pursues his or her claims in arbitration our attorneys work to ensure that the protections of U.S. law will apply to their case.
January 31, 2011
Tracey Wallace v. NCL
Complaint
In this complaint the Plaintiff is seeking compensation for an injury she suffered when a cabin door slammed shut on her finger and partially amputated it.
January 06, 2011
Alcalde v. Carnival Corp.
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand
In this motion the Plaintiff is seeking to enforce his right to bring suit in the forum of his choosing. Upon initially suing in state court, the Defendant removed the lawsuit to Federal Court. This motion seeks to have the Federal court return the action to Florida State Court.
January 03, 2011
Alcalde v. Carnival Corporation
Motion to Conduct Limited Discovery into Defendant's Arbitration Provision
In this motion the Plaintiff has challenged a provision in his contract that requires he arbitrate any disputes with Carnival outside of court. In order to challenge this provision the Plaintiff asked for limited discovery regarding the making and purpose of the arbitration provision.
January 03, 2011
Alacalde v. Carnival Corp.
Response in Opposition of Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration
This response in opposition to the Defendants Motion to Compel Arbitration argues against the Defendant's attempt to block the Plaintiff's access to the Courts by forcing him to an alternative dispute resolution.
December 30, 2010
Plaintiff v. Carnival Corp., Dickson Productions, and Jeremy Watkins
After being sexually assaulted on a themed music cruise, the Plaintiff in this action sued in Miami, Florida. Defendant Dickson Productions attempted to have the case against them dismissed, arguing that the court did not have personal jurisdiction. The Plaintiff filed this supplemental response in opposition to that motion to demonstrate Dickson Productions connections to Miami, Florida.
December 28, 2010
Hunter v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
Response in Opposition to Motion to Compel Arbitration
Here a Plaintiff seafarer is opposing Royal Caribbean's attempt to block her access to the Court by compelling her to arbitrate her disputes with the company.
December 16, 2010
Lobo v. Celebrity Cruises and Federazione Italianan Transporti
Reply Brief
After submitting their Initial Appellate Brief the Plaintiffs received the Defendant's Response with opposing arguments. Plaintiff's then countered with this Reply Brief to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals before a decision was rendered.
November 28, 2010
Costa, Fernandez, D'Acosta v. Celebrity Cruises
Seamans Complaint to Vacate Arbitration Award Without Pre-payment of Filing Fee Pursuant to 28 U.S.C
Plaintiff seafarers who worked for Celebrity Cruises filing a complaint to vacate an unfair award they obtained at an arbitration against Celebrity.
November 08, 2010
Gosalvez v. Celebrity
Response in Opposition to a Motion to Dismiss
Here a seafarer is opposing the Defendant's attempt to dismiss his claims from arbitration for not following grievance procedures set out in his contract.
October 21, 2010
Johnson v. Del Monte and Network Shipping
Order on Defendant's Motion to Vacate Attachment
In this order issued by the Southern District of Florida the Court found merit in the Plaintiff's arguments against Defendant's motion to vacate attachment. Ultimately the motion was denied as to Network shipping and granted as to Del Monte.
October 18, 2010
Johnson v. Del Monte and Network Shipping
Response in Opposition to Motion to Vacate Attachment
In this Memorandum of law Plaintiff opposes Defendants' attempt to escape a garnishment which the Plaintiff brought under Supplemental Rule B and Local Admiralty Rule 2. This attachment garnished funds being held for the Defendant in order to compensate a longshoremen killed while unloading a vessel in Costa Rica.
October 12, 2010
Lobo v. Celebrity Cruises and Federazione Italianan Transporti
Initial Appellate Brief
In this Initial Appellate Brief to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States, the Plaintiffs are appealing a decision of the Southern District of Florida denying the application of U.S. labor laws to foreign seafarers working for cruise line headquartered in Miami, FL.
August 05, 2010
Nancy Thomas v. Carnival Corporation, Doctor Elwi Sayed-Tanani, Nurse Mayam Wardee, Nurse Ninette Williams, Nurse Cheryl MacFarlane, Doctor Doe and Nurse Doe 1 through 3
Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Quash
Plaintiff's served the individually named medical Defendants in this case, who are employees of Carnival, by serving the corporate agent of Carnival. Carnival attempted to have this service invalidated by the Court by arguing that it was improper. In this response the Plaintiff explains to the Court why the method of service chosen was the most appropriate method and should be upheld.
April 25, 2010
Plaintiff Vs. Oceania Cruises, INC. in a case of Sexual Assault
Complaint
The mother of an underage girl who was sexually assaulted while on a cruise filed this complaint on her daughters behalf against Oceania.
January 07, 2010
Trafalgar v. Zurich
Initial Appellate Brief
In this brief to the Fourth District Court of Appeals the Plaintiff is seeking the reversal of a lower court decision denying him attorney's fees in a breach of contract insurance claim. The Plaintiff was successful in making a recovery in the underlying breach of contract claim.