Royal Caribbean urged a Florida federal judge to reject a recommendation to combine 11 lawsuits alleging a former crew member planted hidden cameras in passengers’ staterooms, arguing that a stay in a similar proposed class action bars consolidation until the Eleventh Circuit rules on whether claims can be arbitrated.
The luxury cruise company on Tuesday filed its objection to a magistrate’s report and recommendation in Miami federal court, arguing consolidating the complaints would force it to revise litigation strategy that had already been formulated based on the claims in the proposed class action alleging liability and negligence surrounding the hidden cameras placed by former crew member Arvin Mirasol.
“Setting aside the impropriety of the consolidation and homogeneity invited by the R&R,” Royal Caribbean said, “there simply can be no ruling on the R&R at this juncture as all eleven actions are stayed until the Eleventh Circuit resolves Royal Caribbean’s appeal of the arbitration ruling issued in [the class action]. For that reason alone, at this stage, the R&R cannot stand.”
Following a Tuesday status conference in Miami, U.S. Magistrate Judge Detra Shaw-Wilder said she’d amend her May 20 report to recommend consolidation of 10 cases given the stay that was issued in the proposed class action while Royal Caribbean appeals an order denying its motion to compel arbitration.
Dozens of plaintiffs brought their proposed class action in October 2024 in what was the first of 11 cases against Royal Caribbean. The lawsuits alleged that Royal Caribbean had previous experience with hidden cameras in passenger cabins and should have known the risks surrounding Mirasol’s conduct.
In March 2024, Mirasol was indicted in Miami federal court and charged with production of child pornography. Prosecutors said that Mirasol, a citizen of the Philippines, had placed hidden cameras in staterooms he controlled while serving as crew member aboard the Symphony of the Seas cruise ship. Mirasol is accused of secretly recording hundreds of passengers on 12 separate cruises for a period of three months.
Mirasol pled guilty in June 2024 and was sentenced to more than 30 years in prison the following September. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed his sentence in June 2025.
The proposed class plaintiffs brought a January 2025 motion to certify nationwide issue classes. The motion seeks certification on two issues: whether the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act invalidates Royal Caribbean’s efforts to force passengers to resolve claims out of court, and whether the cruise ship company is vicariously liable for Mirasol’s actions.
In May, a U.S. district judge adopted Judge Shaw-Wilder’s April 22 recommendation to deny Royal Caribbean’s arbitration bid. The proposed class action was stayed after Royal Caribbean appealed the decision to the Eleventh Circuit. The plaintiffs filed a June 3 motion to the Eleventh Circuit, requesting that the decision be summarily affirmed.
On May 20, before the district judge adopted the first report and recommendation, Judge Shaw-Wilder issued a second report recommending that the lawsuits be consolidated. Some of the plaintiffs in the related cases filed motions to amend their complaints that would conform to the sixth amended complaint filed in the proposed class action.
In her report, Judge Shaw-Wilder said plaintiffs in the related cases sought a resolution on arbitration similar to the proposed class action, but haven’t brought a consolidated complaint.
“If the related complaints do not conform to the sixth amended complaint,” Judge Shaw-Wilder said, “this court will need to file separate reports and recommendations in each of the related matters to analyze the arbitration issue based on the operative complaint in each matter, which could result in conflicting rulings depending on how each complaint is pled — even though they all stem from Mirasol’s conduct on the twelve Royal Caribbean cruises.”
Royal Caribbean said in its objection that Judge Shaw-Wilder issued her second report and recommendation sua sponte, or on her own accord, but added that such a decision “should have been issued after targeted briefing and/or a more fulsome conference.”
Royal Caribbean said the judge’s report improperly “invited” 127 additional plaintiffs to consolidate their claims in a filing that “just adds new names in a homogenized complaint.”
Royal Caribbean urged the court to consolidate the cases for discovery purposes only.
“The actual alleged facts of each plaintiff must prevail,” Royal Caribbean said in its objection, “not homogenized facts intended to conserve judicial resources. Some of the current complaints have different and unique factual allegations, and the R&R now seeks to wipe them from the record.”
Counsel representing Royal Caribbean did not immediately respond to emailed requests for comment on Wednesday.
Jack Hickey of the Hickey Law Firm, who represents families in two lawsuits, told Law360 on Wednesday that Royal Caribbean is trying to have “complete control” over all the facts in the lawsuits. Hickey disagreed that the company is at a disadvantage.
“The purpose of a pleading is to give notice in general to a party of what’s going on,” Hickey said. “The purpose of a pleading Is not to discuss … everything about a case because discovery has not taken place.”
Jason R. Margulies of Lipcon Margulies & Winkleman PA, who represents plaintiffs in the proposed class, told Law360 in an emailed statement on Wednesday that Mirasol violated the privacy of up to 960 passengers, many of whom haven’t been directly notified by Royal Caribbean of the video voyeurism.
Margulies said the hearing on Tuesday was to figure out a way to deal with the procedural “quagmire.” The result of Tuesday’s hearing will hopefully have the effect of consolidating the cases for the appeal, Margulies said.
“The court’s recognition of the Ending Forced Arbitration Act to void Royal Caribbean’s passenger ticket arbitration clause will certainly also act to void Royal Caribbean’s class action waiver provisions in their passenger ticket contract,” Margulies said.
“Having devoted most of my career to protecting the rights of victims of sexual assaults and harassment occurring aboard cruise ships, this is a significant victory for passenger victims, who are often unknowingly forced by cruise lines to accept provisions within the fine print of their cruise passenger tickets that significantly limit their rights and are unconscionable.”
The plaintiffs are represented by Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti of Tucker Ronzetti PA, Jason R. Margulies, Michael A. Winkleman, Jacqueline Garcell and Marc E. Weiner of Lipcon Margulies & Winkleman PA, Adam M. Moskowitz of The Moskowitz Law Firm, Bernardo Pimentel II and Justin B. Shapiro of Leesfield & Partners PA, Abby Ivey, Matthias M. Hayashi and Spencer M. Aronfeld of Aronfeld Trial Lawyers PA, Ian D. Pinkert and Jay Halpern of Halpern Santos & Pinkert PA, Edward S. Schwartz, David L. Markel, Philip M. Gerson and Nicholas I. Gerson of Gerson and Schwartz PA, Brian L. Harvell and Sagi Shaked of Shaked Law Firm PA, Prosper A. Shaked of Prosper Injury Attorneys and John H. Hickey and Lisa C. Goodman of Hickey Law Firm.
Royal Caribbean is represented by Kurt K. Lunkenheimer and John J. Sullivan of Cozen O’Connor and by Jerry D. Hamilton, Krista F. Acuña, Kassandra D. Taylor and Douglas K. Scheller Jr. of Hamilton Miller & Birthisel LLP.
The cases are Jane Doe (S.F.) et al. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. et al., case number 1:24-cv-23953; Doe et al. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., case number 1:25-cv-20485; Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., case number 1:25-cv-20138; V.V., et al. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., case number 1:25-cv-20051; T.L. et al. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. et al., case number 1:24-cv-25009; M.S. et al. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. et al., case number 1:24-cv-24738; J.L.S. et al v. Royal Cruises Ltd. et al., case number 1:24-cv-24139; K.T. et al. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. et al., case number 1:24-cv-24193; D.M. et al. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. et al., case number 1:24-cv-24988; C.B. et al. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. et al., case number 1:24-cv-25089; and Doe v. Caribbean Cruises Ltd., case number 1:24-cv-24039, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The appellate case is Jane Doe (S.F.) v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., case number 26-11899, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
