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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD,
ALBERTO BERRIO (Ship’s Doctor),
DANIELA CROITORU, (Ship’s Nurse),
CHRISTIAAN HERBST, (Ship’s Nurse),
DOCTOR DOE, (Ship’s Doctor),
NURSE DOE, (Ship’s Nurse),
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO IMPRESS SERVICE IN AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION
Plaintiff, JOHN DOE, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files this Motion to Impress Service in an Abundance of Caution on ALBERTO BERRIO, DANIELA CROITORU, and CHRISTIAAN HERBST (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Medical Defendants”), and as good cause therefore relies on the following:
PLAINTIFF HAS EXECUTED VALID SERVICE ON THE MEDICAL DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE. HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE MEDICAL DEFENDANTS LIVE AND WORK ABOARD ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISE SHIPS THAT PLAINTIFF AND HIS PROCESS SERVER CANNOT ACCESS, PLAINTIFF PERFECTED SERVICES USING SEVERAL DIFFERENT METHODS AND NOW FILES THIS MOTION IN AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION. PLAINTIFF SERVED THE MEDICAL DEFENDANTS BY: 1) SERVING THEM THROUGH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, 2) SENDING A COPY OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, AND 3) BY LEAVING COPIES OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AT ROYAL CARIBBEAN’S HEADQUARTERS AFTER ROYAL CARIBBEAN REFUSED TO ACCEPT SERVICE. THERE IS NOTHING MORE THAT THE PLAINTIFF CAN DO AND THE MEDICAL DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE NOTICE OF THIS ACTION.
On or about April 27, 2012, Plaintiff suffered a ruptured spleen while he was a passenger aboard the Royal Caribbean vessel Oasis of the Seas. Plaintiff visited the medical facility onboard the vessel where the Defendants failed to promptly and properly diagnose and treat Plaintiff’s ruptured spleen. Further, the Defendants failed to timely evacuate Plaintiff to a shoreside hospital. As a result of these failures, Plaintiff sustained severe and permanent injuries. On March 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed a seven-count Complaint against Royal Caribbean and the Medical Defendants. [D.E. 1].
Royal Caribbean has already been served and the Court has issued an order dismissing portions of Plaintiff’s complaint and ordering Royal Caribbean to answer. [D.E. 19]. When Plaintiff attempted to serve the Medical Defendants, Royal Caribbean informed the Plaintiff that the Medical Defendants live and work aboard several Royal Caribbean cruise ships. See e-mail correspondence from Royal Caribbean Attorney Bryan Probst, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. While aboard ship, crew (including the medical defendants) receive mail directly from Royal Caribbean. Despite this fact, Royal Caribbean refuses to accept service on the Medical Defendants’ behalf. See e-mail correspondence from Royal Caribbean Attorney Bryan Probst, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
The Medical Defendants have not yet appeared, although Plaintiff served them in three ways: 1), Plaintiff served the Medical Defendants by serving the secretary of state pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 48.181, 2) Plaintiff mailed a copy of the Complaint and Summons to the Medical Defendants via registered mail, return receipt requested, and 3) Plaintiff served the Medical Defendants by serving Royal Caribbean as their agent. The Medical Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s Complaint are currently due on July 23, 2013. In an abundance of caution and without waiving the methods of service already performed by Plaintiff, Plaintiff is filing this motion to clarify with the Court his reasons for perfecting service in the manners specified above.
II.PLAINTIFF HAS DONE ALL THAT HE CAN REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO DO IN ORDER TO SERVE THE MEDICAL DEFENDANTS. BY USING SEVERAL METHODS TO PERFECT SERVICE, PLAINTIFF SATISFIED DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS AND THE MEDICAL DEFENDANTS HAVE OR SHOULD HAVE NOTICE OF THIS ACTION.
The starting point for an analysis of amenability of service of process in federal court is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Rule 4 allows for two types of service: personal and substituted. Personal service has not in all circumstances been regarded as indispensable to the process due to residents, and has more often been held unnecessary as to nonresidents. See Silvious v. Pharaon, 54 F.3d 697 (11th Cir. 1995) (citing Mulane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950)).
The Medical Defendants currently live and work onboard Royal Caribbean cruise ships. Access to these cruise ships is limited to passengers and Royal Caribbean crewmembers. Therefore, Plaintiff does not have the ability to personally serve the Medical Defendants onboard Royal Caribbean’s ships. Accordingly, personal service on the Medical Defendants in this instance is impossible and substituted service should be allowed.
1. First Method of Service: Plaintiff’s Substituted Service Through the Florida Secretary of State Satisfied the Elements of Federal Rule 4(e)(2)(C).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) provides, in part:
(e) Serving an individual within a Judicial District of the United States an individual may be served in a judicial district of the United States by:
(1) following state law for serving summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where the service is made; or
(2) doing any of the following:
(C) delivering a copy to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.
Id. (emphasis added). As shown above, “Rule 4(e) permits personal service upon a Defendant to be made by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to a person deemed by the general law, federal and state, to be authorized to accept service of process on behalf of the Defendant.” Silvious v. Pharaon, 54 F.3d 697, 701 (11th Cir. 1995) (citing 2 James W. Moore et. al. , Moore’s Federal Practice § 4.10, at 4-183).
Florida law, particularly Fla. Stat. § 48.181, permits the Florida Secretary of State to accept service on behalf of nonresidents who engage in or carry on a business or business venture in this state. See Fla. Stat. § 48.181; see also Pelycado Onroerend Goed B.V. v. Ruthenberg, 635 So.2d 1001, 1003 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Therefore, the Florida substitute service statute, § 48.181, constitutes an exception to the general rule that a defendant must be personally served by providing that any resident of a foreign country operat[ing], conduct[ing], engag[ing] in, or carry[ing] on a business or business venture in Florida is deemed to appoint Florida’s Secretary of State to accept service of process on their behalf. See Cantley v. Ducharme, 2010 WL 2382912 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (citing Monaco v. Nealon, 810 So.2d 1084, 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)).
The Florida Supreme Court has held that engaging in a single act for profit can amount to a business venture. Labbee v. Harrington, 913 So.2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (citing Wm. E. Strasser Contra. Linn, 97 So.2d 458, 459 (Fla. 1957)). The Court noted that in the case of an individual, doing business means “doing a series of similar acts for the purpose of thereby realizing a pecuniary benefit, or otherwise accomplishing an object, or doing a single act for such purpose with the intention of thereby initiating a series of such acts.” Labbee, 913 So.2d at 682 (citing Webber v. Register, 67 So.2d 619, 623 (Fla. 1953)); see also Poston v. American President Lines, Ltd., 452 F.Supp. 568 (S.D. Fla. 1978):
The intent of the Florida legislature in enacting Florida Statute 48.181 (was) that any individual or corporation who has exercised the privilege of practicing a profession or otherwise dealing in goods, services or property, whether in a professional or nonprofessional capacity within the State in anticipation of economic gain, be regarded as operating a business or business venture for purposes of service of process under Florida statute 48.181.
Id. Herein, as alleged in the Complaint [D.E. 1 4(e)], the Medical Defendants administered medical care to the Plaintiff in Florida waters and were thus conducting a business venture in Florida. Further, at all times material, the Medical Defendants were employed by Florida-based Royal Caribbean and “were engaged in substantial activity within this state,” in anticipation of economic gain. [D.E. 1, 4 6].
These allegations are sufficient to establish proper substituted service through the secretary of state for purposes of § 48.181. See Labbee v. Harrington, 913 So.2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 573, 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (to determine whether long-arm jurisdiction is appropriate for substitute service, the complaint must either plead a basis for jurisdiction pursuant to the language of § 48.181 or allege sufficient jurisdictional facts to satisfy the statute).
Since the Medical Defendants are not available to be personally served, but are conducting a substantial business venture in Florida, Plaintiff’s service on the Florida Secretary of State should be deemed proper and this Honorable Court should impress service on the Medical Defendants.
1. Second Method of Service: By mailing a copy of the Complaint and summons to the Defendant via certified mail, return receipt requested, service was made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(2)(c)(ii).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) provides that an individual in a foreign country may be served by, “using any form of mail that the clerk addresses and sends to the individual and that requires a signed receipt.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(2)(C)(ii).
Article 10 subparagraph (a) of the Hague Convention states in relevant part that “[p]rovided the State of destination does not object, the present Convention shall not interfere with (a) the freedom to send judicial documents, by postal channels, directly to persons abroad” 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638. The Defendants are living on cruise ships registered in the Bahamas, therefore they are residing in the Bahamas. The Bahamas is a signatory to the Hague Convention and it does not object to service by mail. See Day v. Corner Bank (Overseas) Ltd., 789 F. Supp. 2d 136, 145 (D.D.C. 2011). See also Hague Convention, Bahamas — Central Authority & practical information 
This Honorable Court recently observed that “this district, along with several district courts within the Eleventh Circuit and many other federal circuit courts and district courts, have held that ‘Article 10(a) permits service by mail unless the country has objected to this method.’” TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Pak China Group Co. Ltd., 843 F. Supp. 2d 1284, 1293 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (citing TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Bequator Corp., Ltd., 717 F.Supp.2d 1307, 1309 (S.D. Fla. 2010.
On July 2, 2013, Plaintiff sent the Medical Defendants, via registered certified mail, a copy of the Complaint and Summons to Royal Caribbean’s headquarters in Miami, FL addressed to each of the Medical Defendants on the various Royal Caribbean vessels on which they work and live. [D.E. 21-2, 22-2, and 23-2]. This is for all intents and purposes, their address in the Bahamas at this time. Accordingly, Plaintiff has served the Defendants under Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention. This Honorable Court has held that this form of service is proper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Balachader v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., 11-21064 [D.E. 25] (S.D. Fla. 2011) (King, J.):
The docket sheet reflects that a summons for service abroad was returned executed on May 11, 2011. The Affidavit of service states that the summons and complaint were mailed directly to Defendant Ponteras at his last known address in the Philippines by Plaintiff’s counsel on May 11, 2011. In addition, Plaintiff filed a copy of the stamped and addressed registered mail sent to Defendant Ponteras. The filing reflects that a signature is required by the recipient. Defendant Ponteras does not dispute that the materials were mailed or that the mailing address is correct. This is a valid method of service under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 4(f) provides that an individual in a foreign country may be served by, “using any form of mail that the clerk addresses and sends to the individual and that requires a signed receipt.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4[f](2)(C)(2).
Id., at pg. 3.
Here, like in Balachander: a) the docket sheet reflects that a summons for service abroad was returned executed [D.E. 3, 4, and 5]; b) the affidavit of service states that the summons and complaint were mailed directly to each of the Medical Defendants [D.E. 21, 22, 23]; c) Plaintiff filed a copy of the stamped and addressed registered mail sent to the Medical Defendants [D.E. 21-2, 22-2, 22-3]; d) the filing reflects that the complaints and summons were received and signed for. [D.E. 24-1].
Service on the Medical Defendants is virtually identical to service on the foreign Defendant in Balachander. Therefore, as this Honorable Court held in Balachander, sending the Complaint and summons directly to Defendant’s place of business (in this case Royal Caribbean’s vessel which is also the Medical Defendants’ residence) via certified mail, is valid service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(2)(C)(ii).
1. Third Method of Service: By having a process server leave a copy of the complaint and summons addressed to each of the Medical Defendants at Royal Caribbean’s headquarters, Plaintiff’s served the Medical Defendants in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2)(b) (by leaving a copy of the complaint and summons at the Defendants “dwelling or usual place of abode”) and 4(e)(2)(c) (by “delivering a copy to an agent authorized by appointment” to accept service).
Along with serving process through the secretary of state and via registered mail, Plaintiff also served the Medical Defendants by attempting to serve Royal Caribbean as their agent. When Royal Caribbean refused to accept service, Plaintiff’s process server left copies of the summons and complaint at Royal Caribbean’s headquarters. This service should be deemed valid as Plaintiff left a copy of the complaint and summons at the Medical Defendants “dwelling or usual place of abode” or alternatively, Plaintiff left the Summons and Complaint with an “agent authorized by appointment” to accept service.
Service under Rule 4(e)(2)(b): Because the Medical Defendants live and work full-time onboard Royal Caribbean’s ships that enter and exit U.S. ports, they are at times within a Judicial District of the United States and thus subject to service under Rule 4(e). Royal Caribbean has not provided Plaintiff with a schedule for each of the vessels that the Medical Defendants work on. Also, simply because the Medical Defendants may be aboard a ship in a U.S. port does not make them accessible to Plaintiff’s process server without cooperation from the cruise line. Under these unique circumstances, service upon the Medical Defendants is impossible without Royal Caribbean’s cooperation.
While a summons and complaint may be served on an individual by personal delivery, “this rule has not been interpreted as requiring a face-to-face meeting with the person upon whom service is to be effected, or delivery ‘in hand.’” Currie v. Wood, 112 F.R.D. 408, 409 (E.D. N.C. 1986). Rule 4(e)(2)(B) provides that a defendant may be served by “leaving a copy of [the Complaint and Summons] at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there” (emphasis added). Considering these unique circumstances, this Honorable Court should find that Plaintiff’s act of leaving a copy of the Complaint and Summons at Royal Caribbean’s headquarters, addressed to the Medical Defendants and with a Royal Caribbean employee, satisfies the requirements of service under Rule 4(e)(2)(b).
It is generally true that leaving a copy of the Complaint and Summons at an individual’s place of employment does not constitute valid service under Rule 4(e)(2)(B). See e.g., Elkins v. Broome, 213 F.R.D. 273 (M.D. N.C. 2003); Betlyon v. Shy, 573 F.Supp. 1402 (D. Del. 1983). However, there is no hard and fast rule to determine whether a given location qualifies as a person’s “dwelling house or usual place of abode,” Nowell v. Nowell, 384 F.2d 951 (5th Cir. 1967), and whether a particular location qualifies is to be determined from the facts in each particular case. Karlsson v. Rabinowitz, 318 F.2d 666, 668 (4th Cir. 1963).
As mentioned above, the Medical Defendants live and work exclusively onboard Royal Caribbean’s cruise ships for months at a time. Therefore, those vessels constitute the Medical Defendants’ “dwelling house or usual place of abode” under Rule 4(e). In compliance with Rule 4(e)(2)(B), Plaintiff left a copy of the Summons and Complaint with an adult Royal Caribbean representative at the company’s headquarters. This is as close as possible as the Plaintiff can get to the Medical Defendants “dwelling house or usual place of abode” due to the situation created by Royal Caribbean.
It is a longstanding rule that a defendant’s refusal to open the door to his residence to prevent a process server from handing him the summons and complaint does not invalidate the plaintiff’s service. Ali v. Mid-Atlantic Settlement Services, Inc. , 233 F.R.D. 32 (D.D.C. 2006). Likewise, Royal Caribbean’s refusal to “open the doors” to its vessels should not invalidate Plaintiff’s service here. This Honorable Court should find that Plaintiff’s service was valid under Rule 4.
Service under rule 4(e)(2)(c): Plaintiff’s attempt to serve the Medical Defendants by serving Royal Caribbean as their appointed agent should be deemed valid. As previously stated, Royal Caribbean and the Medical Defendants have entered into joint defense/indemnity agreements. Upon information and belief, those agreements give Royal Caribbean full power of attorney to appoint counsel and control all litigation against the Medical Defendants. Accordingly, Royal Caribbean should be considered an agent authorized by appointment and should thus be able to accept service on the Medical Defendants’ behalf.
1. Plaintiff’s Service Complies With Due Process Requirements
Long-standing jurisprudence, particularly United States Supreme Court decisions following Mullane v. Central Bank & Trust Co, 339 U.S. 306 (1950), establishes that although the U.S. Constitution does not require any particular means of service of process, the method selected must be reasonably calculated to provide notice and an opportunity to respond. See Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314:
An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to appraise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to be heard to present their objections. The reasonableness and hence the constitutional validity of any chosen method may be defended on the grounds that it is in itself reasonably to inform those affected. Id.
In proper circumstances, this broad constitutional principle unshackles the federal courts from anachronistic methods of service. See Rio Props. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F. 3d 1007(9th Cir. 2002). Further, where a defendant has actual notice of a lawsuit, the court should liberally construe Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to find that service of process was proper. See, e.g., Nowell v. Nowell, 384 F.2d 951, 954 (5th Cir. 1967).
Herein, Royal Caribbean and the Medical Defendants have created a situation wherein it is impossible for the Plaintiff to personally serve the Medical Defendants. Because the Plaintiff has done everything he can reasonably conceive to do in order to perfect service on the Medical Defendants, and because the Medical Defendants have or should have notice of this action, this Honorable Court should impress service on the Medical Defendants.
III.ROYAL CARIBBEAN SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BENEFIT FROM THE IMPOSSIBLE SITUATION IT CREATED. PLAINTIFF HAS MADE VALID CLAIMS AGAINST THE MEDICAL DEFENDANTS (WHO ROYAL CARIBBEAN AGREED TO INDEMNIFY), BUT BY KEEPING THE MEDICAL DEFENDANTS ON THEIR PRIVATE SHIPS, ROYAL CARIBBEAN SEEKS TO PREVENT THE PLAINTIFF FROM EVER BEING ABLE TO LITIGATE THOSE CLAIMS. WHEN PREVIOUSLY CONFRONTED WITH A FACTUALLY SIMILAR CASE, THIS HONORABLE COURT FOUND THAT THE METHODS OF SERVICE PLAINTIFF EMPLOYED HEREIN WERE VALID.
From a public policy standpoint, service should be impressed on the Medical Defendants under these circumstances. If the Court refuses to impress service on the Medical Defendants, Royal Caribbean will be given a road map on how to absolve their employees from all lawsuits. By stashing away employees on their vessels until a statute of limitation or time for service has expired, Royal Caribbean would be able to prevent every one of its shipboard employees from being held accountable for their negligent acts.
This Honorable Court confronted a similar issue in the case of Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Ricardo Andino, Case No.: 11-24327, S.D. Fla. 2011. In that case, a Royal Caribbean passenger was injured when she was struck by a jet ski driven by Royal Caribbean employee, Paul DeLange. Plaintiff brought suit against Mr. DeLange who lived and worked on Royal Caribbean’s private island in the Bahamas. The claimant therein attempted the same methods of service as the Plaintiff in this case. On June 25, 2012, Magistrate Judge William C. Turnoff denied Royal Caribbean and DeLange’s Motions to Quash service. Id D.E. 51. The Court’s holding is memorialized in the hearing transcript below:
The Court: So what this is all about is, you have the alleged tort-feasor, the guy operating the boat and the tour who lives on Royal Caribbean’s, Gilligan’s Island that is accessible only through Royal Caribbean. The mail service, access, they live on the island, and this was a Royal Caribbean Cruise and they did everything consistent with, for substantial purposes, the purpose of the rule is to make sure that service is reasonably calculated [to] provide notice and an opportunity respond.
The Court: How are they supposed to get a letter to him or process to him?
Counsel for RCCL: He has a permanent address in South Africa.
The Court: Excuse me. This was a Royal Caribbean Cruise, was it not?
Counsel for RCCL: Yes, it was.
The Court: This is a Royal Caribbean outing, was it not?
Counsel for RCCL: Yes.
The Court: This man is an employee of Royal Caribbean, was he not at the time.
Counsel for RCCL: He was.
The Court: And he lives on that Gilligan’s Island there that you own, right?
Counsel for RCCL: Well, he is on a different one that they served him on selling —
The Court: The bottom line is he was on that cay, you follow me, living on that cay at the time of the incident. Correct?
Counsel for RCCL: At the time of incident but not at the time of service.
The Court: And all communications to him as an employee was through Royal Caribbean, correct? You represent him, right, in a joint defense agreement, correct?
Counsel for RCCL: Now there is, yes.
The Court: Okay.
Counsel for RCCL: Not at the time of service.
The Court: He actually knows about this, right?
Counsel for RCCL: Yes.
The Court: And he filed a Motion on Friday, right?
Counsel for RCCL: Correct.
The Court: Through you, right?
Counsel for RCCL n: Correct.
The Court: You represent Royal Caribbean, right?
Counsel for RCCL: Yes.
The Court: So isn’t this a joke?
The Petitioners Motion to Quash Service of Process, Docket Entry 29, is Denied. Third-Party Defendant De Lange’s Motion to Quash Service of Process, Docket Entry 49, is Denied. Jurisdictional issues have not been referred to me I will deem the process as [sic] issue served. I will also order that in the future — or anything that’s pending now, in the future service upon counsel, Mr. Friedman’s firm, or any other counsel that enters appearance in this case is sufficient and/or service upon Royal Caribbean is sufficient. At minimum Mr. Friedman’s law firm and/or Royal Caribbean, and right now on this record Mr. Friedman’s law firm represents both Royal Caribbean and De Lange.
See June 25, 2012 Hearing Transcript page 4, lines 5 – 18; page 5 – 14. attached hereto as Exhibit 6.
The only difference between the present case and the factual circumstances above is that the Medical Defendants reside on Royal Caribbean’s private ships instead of its private island. Regardless of this distinction, the Court’s reasoning applies to this case and service of process should be impressed as there is nothing more the Plaintiff can do to perfect service on the Medical Defendants.
Plaintiff has served the Medical Defendants using three separate methods. Each of these methods is independently valid, however in an abundance of caution, this Honorable Court should impress service herein. The Plaintiff’s several methods of service comply with due process requirements and the Medical Defendants have or should have notice of this claim.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter an order Impressing service on the Medical Defendants..
ALSINA & WINKLEMAN, P.A.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Suite 1776, One Biscayne Tower
Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone: (305) 373-3016
Facsimile: (305) 373-6204
By: /s/ Eric Charles Morales
ERIC C. MORALES
FL BAR NO. 91875
 The only addresses provided by Royal Caribbean for the Medical Defendants are onboard Royal Caribbean’s vessels. Royal Caribbean accepted this mailing but refused to accept service on the Medical Defendants’ behalf.
 The term “Defendants” will be used to refer to all the Defendants in this matter.
 [D.E. 21, 22, 23]
 Upon information and belief, Royal Caribbean has agreed to indemnify the Medical Defendants against the claims made by Plaintiff in this action. Accordingly, Royal Caribbean should be able to accept service of process o