Work in Progress
Listed below are 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.
- 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.