Maritime Lawyers Who Stand Behind Their Work

When looking for a maritime lawyer 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 the firm is performing. 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 cruise ship lawyers are working in the court system every day to vindicate the rights of passengers and crew members. 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 other firms on the web. We trust that you’ll find that many other firms talk about the law while Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman P.A. helps shape the law.

Cruise Ship Lawyers Shaping the Law, Not Just Writing About It

The Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman P.A. difference is that we have played an active part in developing maritime law and making make positive changes in the industry. Below are some of the most recent written filings from the cruise ship lawyers at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman P.A., in the state and federal court systems. We have published these examples of our work to allow you to review the caliber of legal representation of our cruise lawyers in representing our clients’ interests.

• Our attorneys have communicated with and met with the United States Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee of the Senate to push for greater transparency in crime data reporting.
• Our cruise ship injury lawyers are appearing on internationally broadcast news exposés on the poor wage and working conditions of major cruise line employees.
• Our cruise accident lawyers are the go-to pundits that major television, newspaper and radio news sources turn to for interviews when breaking cruise ship news happens.
• Our maritime law firm is on the forefront of educating the public and publishing the latest, cruise ship injury lawyer information through the Cruise Law Review which comes out periodically to the marine industry. It is free to the public. Charles Lipcon’s top selling book “Unsafe on the High Seas” has consistently been one of Amazon’s top 30 best sellers in the travel category.
• Smartphone and tablet apps, like our Cruise Ship Lawyer App for iPhone and Android users. This state of the art free application is designed to make sure you and your loved ones know what to do in the event of a shipboard accident.
• Internet blogs such as “The Cruise Ship Law Blog.” Published by our maritime lawyers and updated almost daily, our blog details the firm’s participation in legal initiatives and legislative efforts in the maritime law firm industry.
• Our cruise ship lawyers are working in the court system every day to vindicate the rights of passengers and crew members. Our firm’s work has led to safer ships for passengers and a better workplace for seamen.

In the filings published below, the plaintiff party’s name or names have been removed to respect their privacy.

• January 9, 2023

  Doe Vs Princess Cruise Lines

• August 24, 2022

  Blow v. Carnival Corporation

• May 5, 2022

  Foster Care Abuse Vs. Department of Children and Family Services

• March 29, 2022

  Doe v Grand Hyatt Baha Mar Resort Nassau Bahamas

• September 23, 2021

  Doe RV vs. Disney

• February 9, 2021

  LM&W Statement Regarding Anello Sentencing & Recent Filings in the Case

• December 8, 2020

  Singh v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, ID Tours New Zealand and White Island Tours

• September 11, 2020

  SEAN FLYNN, individually and as PR of the Estate of MOLLIE GHIZ-FLYNN Plaintiff, v. M/V SOUTHERN COMFORT, in rem, FLORIDA SCUBA CHARTERS, INC., et al

• August 4, 2020

  Bahamas Paradise Cruise Line Class Action Complaint

• July 23, 2020

  KATIE MALONE v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, SEA RIDERS, and VALLARTA ADVENTURES

• June 25, 2020

  Barham vs Royal Caribbean Cruises LTD

• June 8, 2020

  Ruby Princess Class Action Complaint – Passengers Coronavirus

• June 8, 2020

  Grand Princess Class Action Complaint – Coronavirus Passengers

• May 12, 2020

  Covid Class Action vs Celebrity Cruises for Passengers

• May 4, 2020

  Crewmember Covid Wrongful Death Complaint vs RCCL

• April 30, 2020

  Class Action Complaint Royal Caribbean Crew Coronavirus

• April 14, 2020

  Complaint – Celebrity Coronavirus

• April 7, 2020

  Complaint – Costa Luminosa Coronavirus

• February 24, 2020

  Statement of Salvatore “Sam” Anello (Chloe Wiegand’s grandfather)

• February 4, 2020

  Preliminary Response – Wiegand vs Royal Caribbean Cruises LTD

• December 11, 2019

  Complaint – Wiegand vs Royal Caribbean Cruises LTD

• July 25, 2019

  Complaint – K.T. vs Royal Caribbean Cruises, LTD

• July 25, 2019

  Appellate Opinion in K.T. vs Royal Caribbean Cruises, LTD

  This is a landmark decision that will require every cruise line to warn passengers about the risk of rapes and sexual assaults on their vessels.

• May 21, 2019

  Vitali Feldman, Plaintiffs, v. Sandals Resorts International, LTD.

• May 13, 2019

  Patricia Mellnitz, Plaintiff, v. Carnival Corporation

  We defeated the Bahamian shore excursion’s (Sun Bahamas Water Sports’) motion to dismiss claiming that the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida lacked personal jurisdiction over it.

• October 25, 2018

  Minott v. M/Y Brunello

  LM&W received a favorable appellate opinion in Minott v. M/Y Brunello, an Eleventh Circuit Federal Appeals Court case in which our maritime injury client alleged that he was entitled to enforce a maritime lien for damages arising from a maritime tort.  The Eleventh Circuit Court’s decision to reverse the denial of the district court has given the plaintiff an opportunity to litigate his claim against the defendants and obtain the damages that he is rightfully owed.

• April 27, 2018

  Diogenes Carpio, Jr.,S, Plaintiff, v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.

  LM&W files wrongful death lawsuit in connection with lifeboat collapse aboard NCL Breakaway that resulted in the death of crewmember Diogenes Carpio, Jr.

• April 27, 2018

  BuenaVentura, Plaintiff, v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.

  LM&W files wrongful death lawsuit in connection with lifeboat collapse aboard NCL Breakaway that resulted in the death of crewmember Ben Buenaventura.

• September 28, 2017

  McIntosh vs RCCL Harvey Class Action Complaint

  LM&W files Class Action lawsuit regarding Defendant RCCL’s knowing and intentional decision to effectively force individuals who had purchased a cruise aboard the Liberty of the Seas leaving August 27, 2017 to fly to Texas while it was in a state of emergency due to Hurricane Harvey, because RCCL would not cancel or modify its planned cruise. In so doing, RCCL forced hundreds of would be passengers, including children and the elderly, to be subjected to catastrophic flooding and potential loss of life.

• May 26, 2017

  ELLERY MAYNARD v. MSC CRUISES S.A.

  LM&W files suit against MSC cruises for minor child sexually assaulted by crewmember.

• January 19, 2017

  CINDI AVILA v. KERZNER INTERNATIONAL BAHAMAS LIMITED, a Bahamian Company; KERZNER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, a Bahamian Company; ISLAND HOTEL COMPANY LIMITED, a Bahamian Company; PARADISE ISLAND LIMITED, a Bahamian Company; and BROOKFIELD ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., a Canadian Company, XYZ CORPORATION(S) (owner(s) and/or operator(s) of the “Atlantis” resort located at Paradise Island, Bahamas),

  LM&W files suit against Atlantis Hotel related to terrifying bed bug incident.

• November 8, 2016

  Erik Elbaz, Individually and as Personal Representative for the Estate of Bernardo Texeira Garcia, deceased v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, LTD.

  LM&W, PA files suit in the high profile overboard case against Royal Caribbean that was all caught on video.

• October 11, 2016

  Tashara Hunter v. Carnival Corporation

  LM&W, PA files suit Against Carnival Cruise Lines related to the drowning of a 6 year old boy.  LM&W, PA now has pending lawsuits against every major cruise line (Carnival, RCCL, NCL) related to the drowning or near drowning of children onboard its cruise ships. The crux of each Complaint stems from the cruise line’s knowing and calculated decision not to use lifeguards at the pools onboard its cruise ships despite advertising and marketing them as being kid friendly.

• June 24, 2016

  Natasha Beckmann, Thomas Brush, Ryan Estey, Emeka Ofuokwu, and Roseann Stockman, v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.,

  LM&W’s files Lawsuit on Behalf of group of Deaf Passengers Left in the Dark when Royal Caribbean knowingly sailed into hurricane-force winds in February 2016.

• March 28, 2016

  CLAIMANT IWONA SIUTA’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [D.E. 832]

  This is a claimant’s memorandum in opposition to Vessel Operator’s motion for summary judgement in a limitation of liability proceeding.

• February 24, 2016

  Anthem of the Seas Passengers file Class Action Lawsuit seeking punitive damages against Royal Caribbean alleging gross negligence against cruise line for knowingly sailing directly into a hurricane.

  This Class Action lawsuit deals with Defendant RCCL’s knowing and intentional decision to sail the Anthem of the Seas, carrying more than 4,000 paying passengers, directly into the path of a Hurricane.  The lawsuit alleges that more than 4,000 passengers were subjected to hours of sheer terror as the gigantic cruise ship was battered by hurricane force winds and more than 30 foot waves.  This terror was amplified by the recent El Faro tragedy, wherein a cargo ship knowingly sailed into a hurricane and 33 crewmembers all perished.  Just months after one of the worst maritime tragedies in recent history, Defendant RCCL’s knowing, intentional and reckless conduct subjects RCCL to the imposition of punitive damages.

• December 30, 2015

  Valentina Azzia and Stefano Agazzi, Individually and as parents and Natural Guardians of A.A. and J.A., minors, v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD.,

  LM&W files lawsuit against Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines seeking punitive damages based on the near drowning of a 4 year old boy at a “kid friendly” swimming pool aboard the Oasis of the Seas.  Our maritime attorneys allege that Royal Caribbean is responsible for the incident for knowingly and intentionally failing to place lifeguards at its “kid friendly” swimming pools.

• December 21, 2015

  T.T., Plaintiff, v. Carnival Corporation (Response)

  This is a response to a motion filed by the cruise line asking the court to dismiss a cruise passenger’s lawsuit, arising out of the injuries he suffered while participating in a shore excursion that was sold, promoted, advertised, and recommended by the cruise line.

• December 8, 2015

  JANE DOE, v ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD., MEUGIN FREDERICKS,

  This is a complaint filed on behalf of a female crewmember concerning allegations that she was sexually assaulted by a male crewmember while they were both working aboard a Royal Caribbean cruise ship.

• December 2, 2015

  J.T., Plaintiff, v. Star Clippers, Ltd.

  When individuals purchase tickets for a cruise, the cruise passenger ticket that they receive contains many important terms and conditions, including when and where the passenger is required to file a lawsuit if/when an incident occurs during the cruise.  A majority of the cruise lines require lawsuits to be filed in Miami, Florida – where the maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. are located.  Other cruise lines, however, require lawsuits to be filed in other countries – even if the passenger lives in the United States.  In this case, a passenger from California sustained a severe injury during her cruise and her passenger ticket contract required that she notify the cruise line about a potential claim within 6 months of the incident and file the lawsuit in a Monaco court within 1 year of the incident.  The passenger therefore notified the cruise line within 6 months of the incident, as required, and the cruise line acknowledged receipt of her notice.  Thereafter, when the passenger filed her lawsuit in Monaco within 1 year of the incident, the cruise line asked the court to dismiss her claim because she did not follow the law in Monaco, which requires passengers to notify cruise lines of incidents within 15 days (not 6 months like the cruise line’s passenger ticket contract required).  Following many years of litigation and appeals, the highest court in Monaco agreed with the cruise line and the passenger’s lawsuit was dismissed.  The law firm of Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. initiated this lawsuit against the cruise line alleging, among other claims, fraudulent concealment and negligent misrepresentation.

• November 20, 2015

  A.C., Plaintiff, v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. (Response)

  In response to a complaint filed against a cruise line and its shipboard doctors and nurses for the inadequate and/or improper medical care to a passenger, the cruise line filed a motion seeking to dismiss the complaint.  This is the response filed by the maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A.

• November 19, 2015

  C.S. vs PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD

  In a case of bad medical care aboard a Princess cruise ship, resulting in the death of a passenger, Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. obtain a stipulation in which Princess accepts vicarious liability for any negligence of its shipboard doctors which was the proximate cause of the passenger’s death.  This stipulation was reached after Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. took the deposition of Princess’ senior vice president and chief medical officer – which established Princess’ involvement in the business of medical care aboard its ships.

• November 5, 2015

  E.N., Plaintiff, v. Silversea Cruises Ltd.

  This case involves a 34-year old seafarer who suffered a traumatic amputation injury while working aboard a cruise ship.  Following the incident, the crewmember initiated a lawsuit in Miami, Florida based on the U.S. law and the Jones Act, which was enacted for the protection of seafarers like him.  The cruise line, however, argued that he was required to arbitrate in the Philippines due to the terms of his contract.  His case was therefore closed, and he proceeded to arbitration.  The arbitrator, however, refused to apply U.S. law., including the Jones Act, and the seafarer was awarded a substantially low disability benefit considering his severe above-the-knee amputation injury.  The maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. therefore filed this motion to reopen the initial case and set aside the arbitration award due to the seafarer being denied his right to pursue any remedy under the Jones Act.

• November 3, 2015

  T.T., Plaintiff, v. Carnival Corporation

  The following is a complaint filed on behalf of a cruise passenger who was injured while participating in a shore excursion that was sold, promoted, advertised and recommended by the cruise line.  The law firm of Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. therefore sued the cruise line and the shore excursion operators on behalf of the passenger.

• October 22, 2015

  D.H., Plaintiff, v. Carnival Corporation

  During the discovery phase of a lawsuit, the parties exchange requests for information and documents.  In this case involving a passenger’s alleged sexual assault and rape by a crewmember during a cruise, this is a motion filed by the maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. that asks the Court to require the cruise line to provide better responses and documents to their requests.

• October 20, 2015

  GIOVANNI COCO, Plaintiff, vs. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, Defendant.

  Lawsuit brought by crew member for asbestos exposure resulting in lung cancer. Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman previously obtained a verdict against Carnival Cruise Lines for another crew member who was exposed to asbestos on the vessels resulting in lung cancer and death. This was the first successful lawsuit against a cruise lines for asbestos exposure.

• September 29, 2015

  C.H. and G.H., Plaintiffs, v. Carnival Corporation

  This case involves the injuries suffered by two cruise passengers while participating in a shore excursion that they purchased through the cruise line.  The cruise line filed a motion seeking to dismiss the lawsuit, and this is the response filed by the maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A.

• September 10, 2015

  A.C., Plaintiff, v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.

  This is a complaint alleging the improper and/or inadequate medical care by the shipboard doctors and nurses during a Norwegian cruise that ultimately led to the passenger’s unfortunate death.

• August 24, 2015

  S.L., vs TRACY ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a THE CABANA CLUB

  This is a Complaint filed on behalf of an individual who sustained severe injuries when she slipped and fell near the pool area of the swim and beach club due to the wet, slippery and/or hazardous flooring surface.

• August 17, 2015

  The Complaint of Boston Boat III, LLC d/b/a vs J.G.,

  This case involves a musician crewmember who was injured while working aboard the Island Adventure vessel during the 2012 Seminole Hard Rock Winterfest Boat Parade. The owner of the vessel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, and this is the response filed by the attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A.

• August 17, 2015

  The Complaint of Boston Boat III, LLC d/b/a vs J.G.,

  In this case, the maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. asked the Court to sanction the owner of the vessel for changing the area where the incident occurred because it made it impossible to inspect the boat in the condition it was in at the time of the incident. In connection with that motion, they filed this memorandum of law which discusses whether or not the Court needed to find that the owner of the vessel changed the area in bad faith in order to sanction them for spoliation of evidence.

• July 31, 2015

  N.M., by and through his Wife and guardian, K.M., vs RESORT SPORTS LIMITED a/k/a RESORT SPORTS LTD.,

  This is a response to a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Defendant in a case involving the personal injury claims of a Jones Act seaman, who suffered severe burns to 87% of the total surface of his body, internal inhalation burns, and burns to the corneas of his eyes when the boat that he was working on exploded.

• July 28, 2015

  P.H., vs CARNIVAL CORPORATION,

  This is a Complaint filed on behalf of a cruise ship passenger who was severely injured when she attempted to open a door located on the Lido Deck of the Carnival Splendor vessel and, as she was holding on to the door handle, the door flew open due to the wind and/or the tunnel effect created when another adjacent door was open at the same time.

• July 24, 2015

  N.M., by and through his Wife and guardian, K.M., vs RESORT SPORTS LIMITED a/k/a RESORT SPORTS LTD.,

  This is case involving the personal injury claims of a Jones Act seaman, who suffered severe burns to 87% of the total surface of his body, internal inhalation burns, and burns to the corneas of his eyes when the boat that he was working on exploded. The maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. initially filed the complaint in state court, the defendant moved the case to federal court, and this is a motion asking the federal court to move the case back to state court.

• July 14, 2015

  S.L. vs CELEBRITY CRUISES, INC.,

  This is a Complaint filed on behalf of a passenger who was severely injured when she tripped and fell on the uneven and irregular surface on the cruise ship’s gangway.

• July 8, 2015

  T.T., vs CARNIVAL CORPORATION,

  This is a complaint filed on behalf of a passenger who was severely injured when she slipped and fell on a wet, slippery and/or hazardous flooring surface on the Lido Deck of the Carnival Breeze vessel.

• July 7, 2015

  G.B., vs CARNIVAL CORPORATION,

  The maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. filed a lawsuit on behalf of a passenger who was injured when another passenger was improperly sliding in the Waterworks area of the Carnival cruise ship, causing her to fall and sustained severe injuries. The attorneys sued Carnival alleging a lack of lifeguards in the area, and a lack of crewmembers supervising, monitoring and/or controlling the passengers’ activities in the area. Carnival filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and this is the response to Carnival’s motion. Ultimately, the Court denied Carnival’s motion and allowed the case to proceed.

• July 2, 2015

  M.R., vs NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD. and M.N.,

  This is a motion to compel better responses to the requests for information and documents the maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. sent to NCL in a case involving the alleged sexual harassment and sexual assault of a former NCL crewmember, by her direct supervisor, over a four-month period of time.

• June 16, 2015

  T.G. and F.G vs K.K., vs A.G.,

  This is a motion to strike the new, undisclosed opinions of the defendant’s expert, which was filed prior to commencing trial. The case involved the severe personal injuries suffered by an individual who crashed a wave runner when she was negligently allowed to operate such wave runner even though it was known that she had no prior training in the operation of a personal watercraft and had never operated a personal watercraft before.

• June 12, 2015

  T.G. and F.G. vs K.K. vs A.G.

  This is a Joint Pretrial Stipulation that was filed before trial in a case involving an individual was negligently allowed to operate a wave runner even though it was known that she had no prior training in the operation of a personal watercraft and had never operated a personal watercraft before. During the course of operating the wave runner, the individual crashed and sustained numerous severe injuries. Ultimately, the experienced trial attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. were successful in the trial, rendering a verdict in favor of the individual.

• June 9, 2015

  The Complaint of Boston Boat III, LLC d/b/a Petitioner/Counter-Defendant vs J.G., Respondent/Counter-Claimant

  This case involves a musician crewmember who was injured while working aboard the Island Adventure vessel during the 2012 Seminole Hard Rock Winterfest Boat Parade. The maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. filed this motion asking the Court to sanction the owner of the vessel for changing the area where the incident occurred, thereby making it impossible to inspect the boat in the condition it was in at the time of the incident.

• June 3, 2015

  E.M., vs CARNIVAL CORPORATION,

  This is a Complaint filed on behalf of a passenger who was severely injured when she fell on hidden and unmarked step(s) located aboard the Carnival Splendor cruise ship.

• May 29, 2015

  C.B. v. Carnival Corporation

  Complaint

  This is complaint filed on behalf of a cruise ship passenger who alleges that she was sexually assaulted in her cabin by a member of Defendant’s crew.

• May 26, 2015

  N.M., by and through his wife and guardian, K.M v. RESORT SPORTS LIMITED a/k/a RESORT SPORTS LTD.

  This is a Complaint filed by the maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. involving the personal injury claims of a Jones Act seaman, who was employed as a boat operator. The seaman was injured when the boat that he was working on exploded, causing him to suffer severe burns to 87% of the total surface of his body and further suffer internal inhalation burns and burns to the corneas of his eyes. – See more at: https://www.lipcon.com/work-in-progress/n-m-by-and-through-his-wife-and-guardian-k-m-v-resort-sports-limited-aka-resort-sports-ltd/#sthash.12Fs2491.dpuf

• May 14, 2015

  Y.T., v. Miami-Dade County

  Plaintiff’s Response

  The Plaintiff was a passenger on a vessel on the Coral Park Canal. The vessel navigated under the Coral Park Canal Bridge from the north side. Unknown to the Plaintiff, a six inch water pipe was horizontally mounted and running parallel to the south side of the bridge. The color of the pipe created an optical illusion to the effect that the water line blended with its surroundings so as to not be readily apparent or visible, creating a hazardous trap. As the vessel existed the south side of the Coral Park Canal Bridge, the Plaintiff was struck without warning on his forehead and face by the water pipe. The collision ejected the Plaintiff off the vessel and into the canal waterway.

  At issue in the Response, is whether the United States district court has admiralty subject matter jurisdiction over the incident.

• May 12, 2015

  J. Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, LTD.

  Complaint

  This is a complaint filed on behalf of a 16-year-old cruise ship passenger, who alleges that she was sexually assaulted and/or coerced into repeatedly performing multiple sexual acts by one of Defendant’s crewmembers.

• May 8, 2015

  E.M.W., v. Royal Caribbean Cruises LTD., Chukka Caribbean Adventures LTD.,

  Response in Opposition

  This is a case involving a cruise ship passenger who was injured while participating in a shore excursion. The shore excursion operators moved to dismiss the passenger’s lawsuit, and this is the response filed by the maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A.

• May 8, 2015

  E.M.W., v. Royal Caribbean LTD., Chukka Caribbean Adventures LTD

  Response in Opposition to Amended Complaint

  This is a case involving a cruise ship passenger who was injured while participating in a shore excursion. The cruise line moved to dismiss the passenger’s lawsuit, and this is the response filed by the maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A.

• May 4, 2015

  C.H. and G.H., v. Carnival Corporation, Out Island Charters NV, and XYZ Corporations

  Response in Opposition

  This is a case involving a cruise ship passenger who was injured while participating in a shore excursion. The shore excursion operators moved to dismiss the passenger’s lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction, and this is the response filed by the maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A.

• April 27, 2015

  J.P., v. Carnival Corporation

  Response in Opposition

  This is a response to a Motion to Dismiss filed by the cruise line Defendant in a case involving the death of a passenger for the alleged inadequate and/or delayed medical treatment by the shipboard medical personnel.

• April 22, 2015

  B.K.R. v. Holland America Line

  Response in Opposition

  This is a response to a Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration filed by the cruise line in a case Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. filed on behalf of an American ship’s doctor who suffered severe injuries while employed by the cruise line.

• April 13, 2015

  Donjon Marine, Co., Inc. v. S.L.

  Answer to Limitations Action

  This case was filed by the owner of a vessel under a maritime rule that allows an owner to exonerate or limit their liability to the value of the vessel when an incident occurs on such vessel. The maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. are experienced in defending such claims. In this case, Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. filed an Answer and a Counterclaim against the owner.

• April 3, 2015

  D.F., Plaintiff, v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, IBEROSERVICE INCOMING SERVICES CORP., and XYZ CORPORATION(S),

  This is a response to a shore excursion operator’s motion asking the Court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s case.

• March 23, 2015

  M.S., Plaintiff, v. MSC CROCIERE, S.A., BEATS AT SEA, LLC, and CLOUD 9 ADVENTURES, L.L.C.,

  This is a motion filed on behalf of an injured cruise ship passenger, wherein the maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. ask that the Court require the cruise line Defendant to provide them with a copy of the incident report and photographs that the cruise line took following the passenger’s incident.

• March 22, 2015

  D.H., Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of R.H. and T.H. (minors), Plaintiff, v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION,

  This is a case involving the alleged sexual assault and rape of a cruise line passenger by a crewmember. The Plaintiff alleges that the crewmember followed her to her cabin and proceeded to sexually assault and rape her while her minor children were also in the cabin. Under maritime law, cruise lines are held responsible for the actions of its crewmembers. In response to the Plaintiff’s Complaint, however, the cruise line is asking the Court to not follow that longstanding maritime law in this case and, instead, dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint. This is the response filed by the maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A.

• March 9, 2015

  Pysarenko v Carnival Corporation, Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.

  Brief of Amici Curiae

  Our office represents 571 former and current cruise line workers. They allege that they were forced to work without gratuities (leaving them with a salary of $50 per month) and therefore forced to work effectively for free, in violation of the Seaman’s Wage Act and U.S. criminal and civil statutes prohibiting forced labor and peonage. They have filed an Amici Curiae Brief with the United States Supreme Court, in support of a Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed in the case of Pysarenko v. Carnival. The goal of the brief is to alert the Supreme Court of the high human cost of arbitration clauses in seaman’s employment contracts.  The inalienable rights of seafarers promulgated by Congress and the federal courts are under assault. They are being implicitly abolished by courts that ratify foreign arbitration clauses in crewmembers’ employment contracts.

• March 5, 2015

  B.M., Plaintiff, v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.,

  This is a Complaint filed on behalf of a cruise ship passenger who suffered severe injuries while participating in the zip line activity aboard the cruise ship. The maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. have handled similar claims against numerous passengers who were injured participating in the same or similar activity.

• March 5, 2015

  E.C., Plaintiff, v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION,

  This is a Complaint filed on behalf of a cruise ship passenger who sustained a serious injury to her eye when her eye was impacted by the corner of an upper berth positioned over her head in her cabin.

• February 25, 2015

  M.F. v. Club Mediterranee, S.A.

  Arbitration

  Club Med employee in the Bahamas was sleeping in her dormitory when a man broke into her room and tried to rape her, in the process choking her and puncturing her neck. The Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, alleging negligence (including failure to provide adequate security in the employee dormitories). The employer moved to compel arbitration of her claims, based on an arbitration agreement in the employment contract. The Third District Court of Appeal held that the Plaintiff’s sexual assault was outside the scope of arbitration. In particular, the Court held that her causes of action did not “arise out of” her employment with the Defendants. The decision sided with two recent opinions out of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

• February 18, 2015

  L.J., Plaintiff, v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION,

  This is a Complaint on behalf of a cruise ship passenger who was severely injured when she slipped and fell on a wet, slippery and/or hazardous flooring surface on the cruise ship’s pool deck.

• February 4, 2015

  A.H., Plaintiff, v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION

  This is a Complaint on behalf of a passenger who was severely injured when she slipped and fell on and unmarked step located in the bathroom of her passenger cabin aboard the vessel.

• February 4, 2015

  J.S., Plaintiff, v. GREG ABRAMS SEAFOOD INC.,

  This is a motion from the attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A., wherein they ask the Court to require the Defendant to provide better responses to the information and documents they requested throughout the course of discovery in the case.

• February 4, 2015

  J.S.,Plaintiff, v. GREG ABRAMS SEAFOOD INC.,

  This is a case filed on behalf of a Jones Act seafarer who was severely injured when he was bitten by a shark.  In this motion, the maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. asked the Court to allow them to seek punitive damages against the Defendant when they obtained information and testimony concerning what they believed to be the Defendant’s attempt to violate maritime law.  The Court granted this motion.

• February 3, 2015

  M.R. v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd.

  Motion to Compel Arbitration

  Former NCL photographer was sexually harassed and assaulted by her supervisor. She filed claims against her employer for negligence and strict liability arising from the harassment and assault. NCL filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration, based on an arbitration agreement in the employment contract. The Court denied arbitration of the Plaintiff’s sexual assault and sexual harassment claims. The Court held that the Plaintiff’s sexual assault and harassment was outside the scope of the arbitration, because it did not “arise out of” her employment with NCL.

  The Plaintiff also suffered an unrelated slip and fall accident while working for the Defendant. She filed Jones Act, Unseaworthiness, and Maintenance and Cure claims against NCL. Because these claims were related to her employment, the Court compelled them to arbitration.

• January 31, 2015

  DH v Carnival Corporation

  Complaint

  This is a complaint filed on behalf of a cruise ship passenger who alleges that she was raped by a Carnival crewmember during a cruise. The passenger alleges that the rape occurred in her cabin, while her two minor children were also in the cabin and witnessed and/or heard the rape while it was occurring.

• January 30, 2015

  BKR v Holland America Line

  Complaint

  This is a complaint filed on behalf of a cruise ship’s doctor who suffered severe injuries while she was loading her luggage through stairs while embarking the cruise ship for work. Among the arguments raised by the maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A., is that the cruise line is liable for requiring its crewmembers to load their luggage through stairs (as opposed to a ramp) when they are embarking the cruise ship. In addition, our maritime lawyers argue that the cruise line failed to provide the crewmember with prompt, proper and adequate medical care for the injuries she sustained, as cruise lines are required to under maritime law.

• January 23, 2015

  BCG v NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.

  Response

  This is our firm’s response in opposition to a motion to dismiss filed by the cruise line in a case dealing with a cruise ship passenger’s severe injuries sustained as a result of a slip-and-fall.

• January 9, 2015

  CD v NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.

  Motion Filed

  This is a motion that the maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A., filed requiring Norwegian Cruise Lines, to produce a copy of the surveillance video showing a passenger’s incident. Ultimately, the cruise line agreed to provide us with a copy of the video after this motion was filed.

• December 31, 2014

  BCG v NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.

  Complaint

  This is a complaint filed on behalf of a cruise ship passenger who was severely injured when she slipped and fell on a wet and slippery flooring surface in a public restroom during a cruise with Norwegian Cruise Lines.

• December 18, 2014

  E.M.W. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., Chukka Caribbean Adventures Ltd., Chukka Caribbean Adventures (Falmouth) Limited; and XYZ Corporation(s)

  Response in Opposition

  This is a case involving a cruise ship passenger who was injured while participating in a shore excursion.  The cruise line moved to dismiss the passenger’s lawsuit, and this is the response filed by the maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A.

• November 22, 2014

  D.G. v. Carnival Corporation, Dr. Sergey Davydenkov, Dr. George Nel, Libby Goslett, Maree Pearce, and Yvonne McConnon Bourgeois

  Amended Complaint

  This case involves the personal injuries sustained by a passenger as a result of the alleged inadequate medical treatment and/or advice provided by the shipboard medical personnel.  For decades, the maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. attempted to hold cruise lines responsible for bad medical care aboard their ships, but antiquated case law prevented them from successfully making that argument.  All of that changed, however, when the 11^{th Circuit Court of Appeals (which is binding for federal district courts in Florida) held that cruise lines can in fact be held liable for the medical negligence of its onboard nurse and doctor under agency principles.  This is a complaint filed after that 11th Circuit opinion.}

• November 13, 2014

  D.M. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.

  Response for MTC Better Responses

  This is the reply brief filed in further support of a motion asking the court to require the cruise line to provide better responses to the questions and documents requested by Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A.

• November 13, 2014

  D.M. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.

  Response for Motion for Summary Judgement

  This is the reply brief filed in further support of the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A.

• October 24, 2014

  D.M. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.

  Response in Opposition

  This is a response to a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the defendant cruise line.

• October 20, 2014

  S.T.A., Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of T.A. and K.A. (minors) v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., RDVT SAR d/b/a Rendezvous Tour Company, and Dutch Tours Enterprises N.V.

  Fact Witness List

  This is the witness list that was filed in a case where 28 cruise passengers were involved in a car accident while participating in a shore excursion.

• October 3, 2014

  D.M. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.

  Motion for Summary

  This is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed in a case where a cruise line passenger was injured while disembarking the tender and embarking the cruise ship.

• October 3, 2014

  D.M. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.

  Response to Motion for Sanctions

  In this case, the plaintiff was injured while disembarking a tender and embarking the cruise ship.  During discovery, the attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. requested any other incidents involving passengers injured while embarking/disembarking a ship’s tender.  The cruise line said there were no other incidents, but the maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. discovered that there actually were other incidents in contrast to the cruise line’s response.  This was the reply to the Motion for Sanctions they filed for the cruise line’s failure to disclose prior incidents.

• October 1, 2014

  B.C., D.S. v. Mt Marida Marguerite Schiffahrts, Marida Tankers, Inc., Heidmar, Inc. and XYZ Ship Owner, XYZ Ship Employer

  Appellants’ Reply Brief

  This is a case involving two crewmembers who were held captive by pirates for approximately two months.  The trial court dismissed the case, which was pending in Connecticut, because it held that Connecticut was not the proper location for the lawsuit.  Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. appealed the court’s decision and this was the reply brief filed in that appeal.

• September 30, 2014

  D.M. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.

  Response to Motion to Compel

  Throughout the course of litigating a case, the parties go through a discovery process where they could request answers to questions and copies of documents.  This is a motion a filed by Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. requesting that the court require the cruise line to provide better responses to the questions and documents requested by them.

• September 11, 2014

  Jeffrey Herman v. C.G. v. 63’ Hatters Motor Yacht “SANDY SUN”

  Response to motion for Entry of Final Judgement/Counter-Claim

  In this case, one of the parties sued by Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. did not respond to the Complaint.  Therefore, the attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. asked the court to default the party, which was granted.  Thereafter, they filed this document for the court to enter judgment against the party.

• September 11, 2014

  M.D. as parent and natural Guardian of A.L., a minor, v. Carnival Corporation

  Response to a Motion For Extension

  This is a case involving the alleged rape of a minor during a cruise.  The defendant cruise line asked the Court for an extension to disclose its expert witnesses more than a month after the Court’s deadline.  This is the response filed by the maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A.

• September 9, 2014

  Jeffrey Herman v. C.G. v. Hatteras Yachts, Brunswick Corporation, Yacht Managment South Florida, Inc., Terra Nova II Investment Inc., Matthew D. Hagans, Katherine J. Hagans, Yacht Sales Concultans Inc., John Doe, XYZ Corp. v. 63’ Hatters Motor Yacht “SANDY SUN”

  Fact Witness List

  This is the witness list that the maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. filed in a case involving a crew member who suffered the amputation of a finger while working.

• August 29, 2014

  Jane Doe v. Carnival Corp.

  Complaint

  Passengers with disabilities often face challenges when vacationing aboard cruise ships. In this case, a disabled passenger was trying to disembark a Carnival cruise ship in a wheel chair. Carnival had set up a ramp for disembarking passengers, but made the ramp so steep that it was dangerous for wheel chairs. When the Plaintiff attempted to use the ramp, no crewmember was there to assist her and she fell from her wheelchair causing serious injuries.

• August 18, 2014

  Jane Doe I and Jane Doe II v. Sean Adam Simon, M.D. and Coral Gables Cosmetic Center

  Response to a Motion to Dismiss

  The personal injury lawyers at Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. specialize in maritime injury cases, but are equally capable of handling land based injury claims as well. In this case, a pair of women who received plastic surgery had their private before and after images posted online against their wishes. The Plaintiffs sued and the doctor and plastic surgery center moved to dismiss their complaint. In this response, one of our skilled personal injury lawyers explains via a memorandum to the court why the case cannot be dismissed.

• August 12, 2014

  Jane Doe v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.

  Complaint

  Injuries aboard cruise ships happen in all kinds of ways. In this complaint filed by one of our experienced cruise ship lawyers, a female passenger was injured when a bunk bed fell on top of her head. On many ships, the bunk beds fold up and into the wall when the bed is not in use. In this case, one of these folding beds fell from the wall and struck the Plaintiff in the head, causing her serious injury. Our lawyers sued Norwegian Cruise Lines because the latch that was supposed to hold the bunk bed in place was not installed by the crew of the ship

• July 28, 2014

  John Doe v. Star Clippers, Ltd., et al

  Motion to Dismiss Appeal

  In this case, a crewmember for Star Clippers Cruises was injured when the food elevator in the galley broke and fell onto his arm, causing severe fractures and nerve damage. After jurisdictional discovery and briefing in response to a motion to dismiss in the trial court, the Plaintiff’s case was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Our appellate attorneys filed an appeal on behalf of the injured seafarer. The appeal was later dismissed after the parties reached a confidential settlement.

• July 24, 2014

  Jone Doe, et al v. Dutch Tours, et al

  Response to Motion to Dismiss

  In this response in opposition to a motion to dismiss, our experienced cruise ship lawyers defend against a cruise line and shore excursion operators efforts to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for failing to state a cause of action.  If you are involved in an accident that took place on a shore excursion, it is critical that you seek the help of a knowledgeable cruise ship lawyer.  After successfully handling numerous shore excursion cases over the years, the attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. are ready to meet the challenges that our inherent in these cases.

   

• June 30, 2014

  Jone Doe, et al v. Dutch Tours, et al

  Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendant, Dutch Tours Enterprises N.V.’S Motion for Recon

  After winning a jurisdictional challenge, one of our experienced maritime attorneys defends the Court’s ruling in this response to the Defendant’s motion for reconsideration.  This case involved a bus accident during a shore excursion resulting in a number of injuries to cruise ship passengers.

   

• June 23, 2014

  John Doe v. Seven Seas Cruises, et al

  Response to Motion to Dismiss

  In this case, an elderly passenger was injured when his mobility scooter fell off the edge of an unprotected ramp.  This accident at sea resulted in a broken hip.  In this document our experienced maritime cruise ship lawyers respond to a motion to dismiss filed by the provider of the mobility scooter.

   

• June 10, 2014

  Jane Doe v. Carnval Corporation

  Complaint

  In this complaint, our knowledgeable maritime attorneys pursue damages against Carnival for injuries sustained by a passenger who slipped and fell on a wet dance floor in a night club onboard.  The Plaintiff alleged that the slipper floor constituted a dangerous condition about which Carnival knew or should have known.  Carnival’s failure to warn the Plaintiff or remedy the dangerous condition caused her injuries.

   

• May 7, 2014

  John Doe v. Silversea Cruises, Ltd., et al

  Response to Motion to Dismiss

  In this response to a motion to dismiss and motion to compel arbitration, our experienced maritime lawyers fight on behalf of a Filipino crewmember who lost his leg in an accident aboard ship.

  • Response to Motion to Dismiss
  • In this response to a motion to dismiss and motion to compel arbitration, our experienced maritime lawyers fight on behalf of a Filipino crewmember who lost his leg in an accident aboard ship.

  – See more at: /work_in_progress.php#sthash.KlCt6zxG.dpuf

  • Response to Motion to Dismiss
  • In this response to a motion to dismiss and motion to compel arbitration, our experienced maritime lawyers fight on behalf of a Filipino crewmember who lost his leg in an accident aboard ship.

  – See more at: /work_in_progress.php#sthash.KlCt6zxG.dpuf

  • Response to Motion to Dismiss
  • In this response to a motion to dismiss and motion to compel arbitration, our experienced maritime lawyers fight on behalf of a Filipino crewmember who lost his leg in an accident aboard ship.

  – See more at: /work_in_progress.php#sthash.KlCt6zxG.dpuf

  • Response to Motion to Dismiss
  • In this response to a motion to dismiss and motion to compel arbitration, our experienced maritime lawyers fight on behalf of a Filipino crewmember who lost his leg in an accident aboard ship.

  – See more at: /work_in_progress.php#sthash.KlCt6zxG.dpuf

• April 15, 2014

  John Doe v. Carnival Corporation

  Complaint

  In this case a young man was injured on a Carnival cruise ship when he slipped and fell on a recently mopped floor surface in a food service area.  Carnival crewmembers failed to place warning signs in the area pursuant to company policy, causing the accident.  The experienced maritime lawyers at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. have handled hundreds of similar claims.  If you are injured in a slip and fall accident aboard a cruise ship, call our admiralty lawyers for a free consultation.

• April 3, 2014

  John Doe v. Carnival Corporation

   

  Motion for Leave

  Our cruise ship trial lawyers work to make sure that passengers get their day in court.  In this motion, one of our maritime lawyers asks the Court for leave to add new claims to a passengers complaint.  The additional claims provide multiple avenues of recovery and allow the Plaintiff to recover for all of the damages he suffered as a result of his cruise ship accident.

   

• March 24, 2014

  Jane Doe v. Carnival Corp.

  Response to Motion to Dismiss

  The cruise ship lawyers at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. help passengers injured all kinds of incidents occurring aboard ships.  This includes when passengers are the victim of crime at sea.  In this case, a passenger was sexually assaulted by a Carnival crewmember.  Crimes aboard cruise ships are under reported and happen at alarming rates.  If you or someone you know was the victim of a crime aboard a cruise ship, call an experienced maritime lawyer immediately to seek help.

   

• March 21, 2014

  John Doe v. Star Clippers, Ltd., et al

  Objections to Report and Recommendation

  The experienced maritime lawyers at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. fight to make sure that our clients get their day in court.  Often times seaman injured aboard cruise ships face arbitration and/or forum selection clauses aimed at denying them access to U.S. Courts.  When this happens, our attorneys fight to protect seafarers hard won rights.

   

• March 5, 2014

  John Doe, et al v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

   

  Post Hearing Memorandum

  Whether your accident happened at sea or on land, the maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. can help.  In this case, a group of passengers suffered injuries when the shore excursion bus they were on crashed.  The shore excursion had been arranged and sold by Royal Caribbean.  In this memorandum of law, our experienced admiralty lawyers advise the Court regarding its maritime jurisdiction over the accident that occurred on land.

   

• February 27, 2014

  Jane Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

  Motion to Compel

  At every stage of pre-trial proceedings, our experienced admiralty lawyers strive to make sure our clients get a fair day in court.  In this motion to compel filed by one of Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A.’s maritime lawyers, the Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Defendant Royal Caribbean to produce an accident/investigative report.

   

• February 20, 2014

  John Doe v. Star Clippers, Ltd., et al

  Notice of Expiration of Ninety Days

  When selecting an attorney to handle your cruise ship personal injury case, it is important to hire an experienced maritime lawyer.  Many maritime cases are handled in federal courts pursuant to admiralty or diversity jurisidction.  If you are injured aboard a cruise ship or any other vessel, it is important to choose a lawyer that is familiar with federal court practice.  In this notice, our attorneys join opposing counsel in notifying the court that a motion is ripe for adjudication has been pending for over ninety days.  By doing so, we ensure that procedural rules are complied with and that our client’s case moves forward in the Courts.

   

• February 11, 2014

  Jane Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

  Complaint

  Acccidents on cruise ships happen in a variety of ways.  Common causes of accidents include equipment malfuntions, insufficient policies and procedures, or as in this case, trip and falls caused by dangerous conditions on a flooring surface.  No matter how you are injured, our experienced cruise ship lawyers have the knowledge to ensure that your rights are protected.

   

• January 29, 2014

  In the matter of: Tamer Gozleveli and Farideh Gozleveli, as owners of a 2012 11’ Sea-Doo Bombarder 21CA

  Response in Opposition to Motion to Bifurcate

  Our experienced maritime lawyers handle all kinds of boating injuries.  In this case, the Plaintiff was injured when her jet ski collided with an obstruction in a waterway.  The owners of the jet ski filed a limitation of liability action, and our admiralty attorneys filed a counter claim.  As the case approaches its trial date, the owners of the jet ski asked the Court to bifurcate the proceedings.  Our maritime injury lawyers opposed the motion and ultimately prevailed on the issue.

   

• January 22, 2014

  John Doe v. Carnival Corp.

  Response in Opposition to Carnival’s Motion to Dismiss

  The Plaintiff in this case was injured aboard the Carnival Triumph after it lost power in the gulf of mexico.  In this response in opposition to Carnival’s Motion to Dismiss, our experienced maritime lawyers explain how Carnival’s arguments fall short and how the Plaintiff sufficiently plead his claim.

   

• January 8, 2014

  Jane Doe as Mother and Natural Guardian of John Doe, a Minor v. Carnival Corp.

  Notice of Appearance

  At Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A., every Plaintiff’s case is given personal attention by one of our knowledgeable cruise ship lawyers.

   

• January 7, 2014

  Jane Doe as Mother and Natural Guardian of John Doe, a Minor v. Carnival Corp.

  Complaint

  Many people enjoy the onboard amenities offered by modern cruise ships.  Those amenities often include child play areas, but passengers should be wary of the dangers that exist in those play areas.  In this case, a minor passenger was injured when he slipped and fell inside a spray park aboard a Carnival cruise ship.  The spray park lacked any supervision and the climbing surfaces were made of a hard slippery plastic.  This surface was dangerous for young children in a dry condition, but when made wet by the activities in the spray park it became an even more dangerous condition that caused injury to a young passenger.

   

• December 23, 2013

  John Doe. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., et al

  Motion for Sanctions

  If you are hurt or injured on a cruise ship, it is important that you immediately consult with an experienced cruise ship lawyer like those at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A.  Our maritime attorneys collectively have decades of experience in litigation against cruise lines.  As a result, we are prepared to deal with any situation that may arise in maritime personal injury case.  In this case, an injured passenger alleged that he received bad medical care aboard a Royal Caribbean ship.  Our admiralty lawyers sued  the cruise line, and the doctor who gave the alleged negligent treatment.  In this motion, our attorneys ask the court to enter sanctions against the Doctor for walking out of his deposition while being questioned.

   

• December 19, 2013

  John Doe v. Royal Caribbean

  Complaint

  Our maritime lawyers fight to protect the rights of injured passengers and crewmembers aboard cruise ships.  In this complaint, our cruise ship lawyers bring suit against Royal Caribbean for a heart injury sustained by a crewmember working aboard its ships over a period of years.  Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. successfully handled a similar case for an injured Maersk crewmember in the landmark case of Skye v. Maersk Lines, Ltd.  If you are a crewmember who suffered injury due to fatigue and/or hazardous working conditions, it is critical that you immediately contact an experienced maritime lawyer like those at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A.

   

• December 17, 2013

  John Doe. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., et al

  Motion for Sanctions

  The experienced admiralty attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. work to ensure that your case is prepared for trial no matter what the Defendant does.  In this case, the Plaintiff was hurt when he allegedly received bad medical care while aboard a Royal Caribbean ship.  When Royal Caribbean attempted to delay the Plaintiff’s preparation for trial, our experienced cruise ship lawyers asked the court to intervene to make sure that the Plaintiff was being treated fairly.

   

• December 5, 2013

  Jane Doe v. Carnival Corp.

  Complaint

  If you are injured on a cruise ship it is important that you immediately contact a maritime attorney.  Cruise ship ticket contracts contain limitations that restrict an injured party’s time to file a lawsuit.  This Carnival passenger slipped and fell while using her shower aboard the Carnival Splendor, sustaining serious injuries.  This slip and fall was caused by dangerous conditions that existed in Carnival’s cabin shower.  By contacting the experienced maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A., this passenger protected her rights and our attorneys filed a lawsuit on her behalf.

   

• November 26, 2013

  John Doe v. Carnival Corp.

  Complaint

  One of the most common accidents that happen aboard cruise ships is a slip and fall.  The experienced maritime lawyers and Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. have handled numerous slip and fall claims and know how to handle the pitfalls associated with these cases.  In this case, a Carnival passenger was injured when he slipped and fell in a food service area.

   

• November 12, 2013

  John Doe. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., et al

  Notice of Mediator Selection

  The lawyers at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. are experienced in dealing with alternative dispute resolution.  In this document, the parties to the case agreed to a mediator to conduct a court ordered mediation.  Whether our attorneys resolve your case at mediation, or continue all the way through  trial and/or appeal, we have the skills needed to ensure that you are fairly compensated for your injuries.

   

• November 11, 2013

  John Doe. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., et al

   

  Motion to Compel Better Answers to Plaintiff’s Initial Interrogatories

  Our experienced cruise ship lawyers fight for our clients at every stage of their case.  In this filing, our maritime attorneys ask the Court to force Royal Caribbean to provide better answers to written interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiff as part of the discovery process.  By ensuring that all relevant evidence comes to light during the discovery process, our experienced admiralty lawyers ensure that each of our client’s cases are prepared for trial.

   

• October 2, 2013

  Jane Doe v. Carnival Corp.

  Response in Opposition to Carnival’s Motion to Dismiss

  Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. vigorously advocates on behalf of injured passengers and crewmembers.  In this case, our admiralty lawyers fight on behalf of a woman who suffered a stroke aboard a Carnival cruise ship.  She alleges that failures on the part of Carnival and their medical team led to paralysis on the right side of her body.

   

• October 2, 2013

  Jane Doe v. Carnival Corp.

  Motion to Conduct Limited Discovery Regarding Carnival’s Control Over Shipboard Physicians

  The experienced maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. strive to stay on the cutting edge of maritime law.  As part of that endeavor, our attorneys actively fight to create new positive law or change existing law that harms passengers’ rights.  In this motion, two of our cruise ship lawyers move the federal court to permit the taking of limted discovery regarding the issue of a cruise line’s control over shipboard medical care.  This area of law is one which Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. has persistently sought to imporove.  This effort to effect positive change in the area of cruise ship medical care is best exemplified by the case of Carlisle v. Carnival Corp.

   

• October 2, 2013

  Jane Doe v. Carnival Corp.

   

  Complaint

  The experienced maritime lawyers at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. handle litigation involving all kinds of accidents aboard cruise ships and other vessels.  In this case, a passenger aboard a Carnival cruise ship was hurt, when the shower door in her cabin bathroom fell onto her foot.  The falling door resulted in a crush injury and a laceration to the foot.  If you are injured on a cruise ship due to an equipment malfunction or due to something on the vessel being in a state of disrepair, you should contact an admiralty attorney to ensure that you preserve any claims that you may have against the cruise line.

   

• September 25, 2013

  Jane Doe v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.

  Complaint

  Our experienced maritime lawyers handle all types of injury claims that occur aboard cruise ships.  In this case, a passenger injured her back when the deck chair she sat in collapsed.  After looking at the deck chair, the passenger realized that the legs of the chair had rusted through, creating a dangerous situation.  To make matters worse, the passenger realized that many of the other chairs on the deck were in the same condition.  If you or someone you know is injured due to inadequate maintenance/inspection, or any similar failure on the part of a cruise line, it is important that you contact an experienced maritime attorney like those at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. as soon as possible.

   

• September 16, 2013

  John Doe v. Star Clippers, Ltd, Star Clippers, GSA d/b/a Star Clippers Americas, and Luxembourg Shipping Services

  Amended Complaint

  After the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint in this case, Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint to insure that all potential responsible parties were included in the proceedings.

   

• September 13, 2013

  John Doe v. Star Clippers, Ltd, Star Clippers, GSA d/b/a Star Clippers Americas, and Luxembourg Shipping Services

  Reply to Response to Motion

  In this brief, our experienced maritime attorneys reply to the arguments raised by Star Clippers in opposition to a Plaintiff’s Motion to strike.

   

• September 9, 2013

  John Doe v. Star Clippers, Ltd, Star Clippers, GSA d/b/a Star Clippers Americas, and Luxembourg Shipping Services

  Reply to Response to Motion for Leave

  In this reply brief, our experienced maritime attorneys respond to arguments raised by the Defendant cruise line in their opposition to the Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend.

   

• September 6, 2013

  Jane Doe v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd

  Complaint

  Injuries can happen in many different ways aboard cruise ships.  Sometimes, even a well intentioned but misguided act by a crewmember can result in a passenger being hurt.  In this case, a disabled passenger was attempting to disembark a cruise ship when a crewmember tried to help with her wheelchair.  When he was trying to help, the crewmember lost control of the wheelchair, causing the wheelchair to fall off the edge of the gangway and the Plaintiff to fall to the ground below.

   

• August 28, 2013

  John Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. d/b/a Azamara Club Cruises

  Complaint

  In this case, a Plaintiff was injured while aboard a cruise ship tender.  Our experienced maritime lawyers filed suit in the Southern District of Florida to ensure this passengers rights were protected.

   

• August 21, 2013

  JANE DOE v. Carnival Corp.

  Response to Memorandum

  When a cruise ship passenger is injured on a shore excursion, it is imperative that they seek out an experienced cruise ship lawyer.  There are many reasons for this, but one of the most important reasons is that when a passenger is injured on a shore excursion, cruise lines often try do defend these claims by arguing that U.S. law does not apply to the case.  An experienced maritime injury attorney, like those at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A., will know what law to apply and and how that law will affect your rights.  In this response to a memorandum filed by Carnival Corp, our experienced maritime lawyers argue for the application of U.S. general maritime law and Florida law.

   

• August 19, 2013

  John Doe v. Star Clippers, Ltd, Star Clippers, GSA d/b/a Star Clippers Americas, and Luxembourg Shipping Services

  Motion to Strike Portions of Errata Sheets

  In this motion to strike, our knowledgeable cruise injury lawyers ask the Court to strike portions of two errata sheets filed by the Defendant cruise line.  Errata sheets are used to alter deposition testimony after the fact.  In this case, a Defendant overreached with their changes and our lawyers asked for the Court’s intervention to make sure that the Defendants were not permitted to take unfair advantage of the rules of civil procedure to disadvantage our client.

   

• August 13, 2013

  John Doe v. Star Clippers, Ltd, Star Clippers, GSA d/b/a Star Clippers Americas, and Luxembourg Shipping Services – Part 2

   

  Motion for Leave to Amend

  If you are injured at sea it is imperative to seek the aid of an experienced maritime attorney like those at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. In this motion for leave, our cruise injury lawyers seek leave from the Court to amend a complaint to add additional defendants that were previously undisclosed.  By doing so, our admiralty lawyers ensured that this injured crewmember preserved all of his rights and potential claims.

   

• July 26, 2013

  Jane Doe v. Deep Sea Charters, Inc. d/b/a Windrage Yacht Charters, Inc.

  Complaint

  Injuries happen on all different kinds of vessels ranging from jet skis to cruise ships.  In Florida, a lot of accidents happen on charter vessels of many different sizes.  Whether you work aboard a charter vessel or are simply enjoying a day on the ocean while on vacation, if you sustain an injury it is important to speak with an experienced maritime lawyer.  In this complaint, a crewmember aboard a dinner cruise boat was hurt when she slipped and fell due to an unsafe condition on the vessel.

   

• July 25, 2013

  Jane Doe v. Carnival Corp.

  Complaint

  If you have been injured aboard a cruise ship, it is important to consult an experienced maritime attorney like those at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A.  Even a simple slip and fall can have far reaching ramifications for your health that may not be readily apparent.  Our experienced admiralty lawyers can advise you as to your rights umder maritime law.

   

• July 16, 2013

  John Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., et al

  Motion to Impress Service

  Cruise ship injury cases can present a variety of challenges that a land based negligence action may never encounter.  Some of those challenges can be as simple as perfecting service on a defendant who lives on a vessel out at sea.  In this case, the experienced maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. seek a Court order ensuring that service is perfected on Defendants that live aboard Royal Caribbean cruise ships.

   

• July 5, 2013

  Jane Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. – Part 4

  Response in Opposition to a Motion for Leave to file a Sur-Reply

  The admiralty attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. actively litigate cases through trial and appellate proceedings.  In this document, the Plaintiff is responding to a motion from Royal Caribbean for leave to file a sur-reply in ann appellate proceeding.  By handling our cases from trial through appellate proceedings, our experienced maritime lawyers are provide comprehensive representation to injured passengers and crewmembers.

   

• June 27, 2013

  John Doe v. Carnival Corp., et al – Part 7

  Reply to Response in Opposition to Motion for Leave to Amend

  Maritime personal injury cases are complex and can involve high amounts of legal research and argument.  That is why it is important to hire an experienced maritime attorney if you or someone you know is injured while traveling or working aboard a vessel.  In this case, Carnival oppposed the Plaintiff’s moiton for leave to amend, necessitating a reply that analyzed the law in favor of allowing Plaintiff to amend.

   

• June 24, 2013

  John Doe v. Star Clippers, Ltd, Star Clippers, GSA d/b/a Star Clippers Americas, and Luxembourg Shipping Services – Part 1

  Response to Motion to Dismiss

  The experienced maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. represent injured passengers and crewmembers from all over the world.  In this case, a crewmember onboard a Star Clippers cruise ship was hurt in the course of his employment.  The Plaintiff filed his claims in the Southern District of Florida and the Defendants moved to dismiss his claims using a several different arguments.  After taking jurisdictional discovery, Plaintiff used the information he gathered to argue that Star Clippers should not be allowed to escape liability by way of playing a corporate shell game to shield itself from claims like the Plaintiff’s.

   

• June 11, 2013

  Jane Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. – Part 3

  Appellate Reply Brief

  The experienced maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. represent client’s at all stages of their legal proceedings.  This includes in the appellate courts of the United States and even in the United States Supreme Court.  In this appeal to the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal, the Plaintiff seeks reversal of the U.S. District Court’s order dismissing her case.

   

• May 24, 2013

  John Doe v. Carnival Corp., et al – Part 6

  Motion for Leave

  In this motion for leave to amend his pleadings, the Plaintiff seeks permission from the Court to amend his Complaint to include new claims under the supplemental admiralty rules.  The knowledgeable attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. ensure that every client’s case is litigated to its full potential under the rules.  Through zealous representation, the experienced maritime lawyers at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. ensure that our clients make the best recovery possible under the circumstances of their case.

   

• May 17, 2013

  John Doe v. Royal Caribbean, et al – Continued

  Response to Motion to Dismiss

  The experienced maritime lawyers of Lipcon, Margulies & 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 9, 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 & 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 6, 2013

  Maersk Line Ltd. v. William C. Skye

  Appellee’s Response Brief

  The maritime lawyers at Lipcon, Margulies & 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.

   

• May 2, 2013

  Crusan v. Carnival Corp.

  Response to Motion to Dismiss

  In this brief, the proposed class of Plaintiffs from the Carnival Triumph debacle respond to Carnival’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Class Action Complaint.  As expected, Carnival heavily relied on the various waivers in its passenger ticket contract in its attempt to avoid liability.  In this response, the Plaintiffs argue that the various ticket contract provisions are either void or inapplicable.  Additionally, Plaintiffs argue that their complaint is adequately pled under the law.

   

• April 25, 2013

  John Doe I, Individually and as parent and natural guardian of John Doe II and Jane Doe (minors), et al v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., et al

  Response to Motion to Dismiss

  The experienced maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. are prepared to help injured cruise ship passengers whether they are injured on ship or on shore.  In this case, a group of cruise ship passengers were hurt when the bus transporting them on a shore excursion crashed.   Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. filed suit in the Southern District of Florida seeking compensation for these injured passengers from Royal Caribbean and its shore excursion partner.

• April 8, 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 8, 2013

  John Doe v. Star Clippers, Ltd., et al – Continued

  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 4, 2013

  John Doe v. Carnival Corp., et al – Part 5

  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 & 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

  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 18, 2013

  Jane Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. – Part 2

  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 13, 2013

  Jane Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd, and Cruise Ship Excursions, Inc. – Part 3

  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 8, 2013

  Jane Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd, and Cruise Ship Excursions, Inc. – Part 4

  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. – Continued

  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 & 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 & Winkleman, P.A. to find out about your legal rights and your options in joining this action complaint.

   

• February 5, 2013

  John Doe v. Carnival Corp., et al – Part 4

  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 & 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

  The experienced maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & 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 & Winkleman, P.A. argue that a Plaintiff’s spouse should be allowed to maintain a claim for loss of consortium.

   

• January 18, 2013

  In re: the Petition/Complaint of Libertad 54 Ltd, as owner of the S/V Libertad – Continued

  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 & Winkleman, P.A.

   

• January 3, 2013

  Jane Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd, and Cruise Ship Excursions, Inc. – Part 1

  Notice of Appearance

  At Lipcon, Margulies & 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.

   

• January 3, 2013

  Jane Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd, and Cruise Ship Excursions, Inc. – Part 2

  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 & 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.

   

• 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 & 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 & 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 6, 2012

  John Doe v. Carnival Corp., et al – Part 3

  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 & Winkleman, P.A. are experienced at fighting to protect passenger and crewmember rights in cases involving medical negligence at sea.

   

• December 4, 2012

  Jane Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., a Liberian Corporation – Continued

  Notice of Filing Proposed Order Scheduling Mediation

  At Lipcon, Margulies & 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.

   

• December 4, 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.

   

• November 15, 2012

  John Doe v. Carnival Corp., et al – Part 2

  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 9, 2012

  Portnof v. Tura Turizm – Continued

  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 7, 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. – Part 3

  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 – Part 1

  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. – Part 2

  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 & Winkleman have handled numerous arbitrations on behalf of injured persons.

   

• October 22, 2012

  John Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. – Part 1

  Motion to Compel

  At Lipcon, Margulies & 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

  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 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 & 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 1, 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 & 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. – Part 1

  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 7, 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 4, 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 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 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 & Winkleman, P.A. who understand the law governing your rights.

   

• 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 9, 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 & 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 9, 2012

  Plaintiff v. Celebrity Cruises – Continued

  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 8, 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 & 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.

   

• August 8, 2012

  Plaintiffs v. Norwegian Seafarer’s Union – Continued

  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.

   

• 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 2, 2012

  Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Ricardo Andino – Continued

  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 & 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 – Part 3

  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

  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 & Winkleman, P.A. for a free consultation.

   

• 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.

   

• February 29, 2012

  William Skye v. Maersk Lines Limited – Part 1

  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 – Part 2

  Response to Motion for Summary Judgment

  At Lipcon, Margulies & 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 7, 2012

  Heather Morris v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. – Continued

  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 & 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 7, 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 6, 2011

  Sandra Rinker v. Carnival Corporation and Ramanbhai Patel – Part 3

  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 6, 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 5, 2011

  Giovanna Settimi Caraffa vs. Carnival Corp. – Continued

  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.

   

• December 5, 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.

   

• November 28, 2011

  Sandra Rinker v. Carnival Corporation and Ramanbhai Patel – Part 2

  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 21, 2011

  Johnson v. Del Monte and Network Shipping Lawsuit

  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 20, 2011

  Sandra Rinker v. Carnival Corporation and Ramanbhai Patel – Part 1

  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 5, 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 & 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 7, 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 1, 2011

  William C. Skye v. Maersk Line Limited Corp. d/b/a Maersk Line Limited – Continued

  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. – Continued

  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 8, 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 – Part 2

  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. – Part 3

  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. – Part 1

  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 3, 2011

  Vidhaya Balachander as personal representative of the estate of Sripathi Balachander vs. NCL Bahamas ltd. and Rey Ponteras – Part 1

  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. – Part 2

  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 9, 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 5, 2011

  Abraham Wallace et. al. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. – Part 2

  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 & 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.

   

• May 5, 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.

   

• 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) – Part 3

  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 6, 2011

  Abraham Wallace et. al. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. – Part 1

  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) – Part 1

  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) – Part 2

  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 – Continued

  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 2, 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 & 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 6, 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 3, 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.

   

• January 3, 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.

   

• 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. – See more at: /work_in_progress.php#sthash.PohIBdhD.dpuf

• 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 Transportion

  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 8, 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 Lawsuit

• 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 Transportion Lawsuit

  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 5, 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 7, 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.