Work in Progress

Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A

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

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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 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 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 11th 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.

  • 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 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 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.

  • 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

  • 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.

     

  • 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 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.

     

  • 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.

     

  • 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.

     

  • 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 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.

     

  • 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.

     

  • 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.

     

  • 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 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.

     

  • 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.

     

  • 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.

     

  • 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 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.

     

  • 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 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.

     

  • 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.

     

  • 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.

     

  • 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 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.

     

  • 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.

     

  • 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.

     

  • 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.

     

  • 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.

     

  • 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.

     

  • 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.