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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 12-CV-23768-KING/McALILEY
STAR CLIPPERS, LTD. CORP.,
STAR CLIPPERS GSA, INC., d/b/a
STAR CLIPPERS AMERICAS and
LUXEMBOURG SHIPPING SERVICES, S.A.,
d/b/a STAR CLIPPERS,
NOTICE OF NINETY DAYS EXPIRING
COMES NOW, the parties, by and through their respective undersigned counsel, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b)(4) and hereby Notices this Honorable Court of the Expiration of ninety days in regards to the following motion and provides the related pertinent history, as follows:
1. On December 13, 2012, all three Defendants filed a joint Motion to Dismiss [D.E. 24], which raised the following defenses:
(1) a challenge to the service of process on Luxembourg Shipping;
(2) a challenge to the personal jurisdiction over Luxembourg Shipping;
(3) improper venue under the Maritime Employment contract;
(4) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Star Clippers, Ltd and Star Clippers GSA; and
(5) forum non conveniens and resulting lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
2. The parties agreed to suspend the briefing schedule on the pending motion to dismiss until discovery on the jurisdictional issues was completed. [D.E. 25]. The Court endorsed the agreement. [D.E.26].
3. After the jurisdictional discovery concluded, Plaintiff filed his Response Memorandum of Law to the pending Motion to Dismiss on June 24, 2013. [D.E. 47] and Defendant filed its Reply Memorandum of Law in support of the Motion to Dismiss on July 15, 2013. [D.E. 53].
4. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend to add two parties. [D.E. 62].
5. On September 30, 2013, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, and re-asserted the defenses included in the original motion to dismiss and challenged the propriety of naming the two new Defendants to the case. [D.E. 66]. Plaintiff filed its Response Memorandum. [D.E. 69]. The parties then stipulated on October 29, 2013 to the dismissal of the two newly-named Defendants. [D.E. 81].
6. Therefore, the issues raised in the Defendants’ initial motion to dismiss [D.E. 24], and subsequently renewed in the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint [D.E. 66], are fully briefed and ripe for adjudication.
7. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b)(4), the parties jointly advise the Court that ninety days has expired since the stipulation on October 29, 2013 rendered the motion to dismiss ripe for adjudication. [D.E. 81].
|Eric C. Morales, Esq.
Lipcon Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A.
One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1776
2 South Biscayne Blvd.
Miami, FL 33131
Attorney for PlaintiffBY: /s/Eric C. Morales, Esq.
Eric C. Morales, Esq.
FL BAR NO. 91875
|Stephanie H. Wylie, Esq.
Horr, Novak, & Skipp, P.A.
Two Datran Center, Suite 1700
9130 S. Dadeland Blvd.
Miami, FL 33156
Attorneys for Defendants
BY: /s/Stephanie Wylie Esq.
Stephanie H. Wylie, Esq.
FL BAR NO. 130140