Case ID: so3d_22/html/0566-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. PER CURIAM. GERSTEN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Laurine SPIVEY-FERGUSON, Appellant, v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, a/k/a, Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., a/k/a, Carnival Tours, Appellee.
    No. 3D07-1009.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Feb. 13, 2008.
    Opinion Denying Rehearing and Granting Certification Nov. 25, 2009.
    Roderick F. Coleman, Coral Gables, for appellant.
    Mase & Lara, and Curtis Mase, and Rachel S. Cohen, Miami, for appellee.
    Before GERSTEN, C.J., and RAMIREZ, and CORTINAS, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Leslie v. Carnival Corp., 22 So.3d 561, 2008 WL 34793 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan.2, 2008).

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND CERTIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

We deny rehearing based on the court’s en banc opinion in Leslie v. Carnival Corporation, No. 3D06-2228, 22 So.3d 567, 2009 WL 4061430 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 25, 2009). However, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v), we grant the motion for certification and certify to the Supreme Court of Florida the following as a question of great public importance:

IS CARNIVAL’S FORUM SELECTION ENFORCEABLE IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE, BECAUSE OF THE JURISDICTIONAL LIMITATIONS OF FEDERAL COURTS, THE CLAUSE OPERATES TO DENY CERTAIN PLAINTIFFS, INCLUDING ALL FLORIDA CITIZENS, A RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL IN FLORIDA WITHOUT NOTICE AND WITHOUT CONSENT TO WAIVING THIS RIGHT AS GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 1, SECTION 22 OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION?

RAMIREZ, C.J., and CORTINAS, J., concur.

GERSTEN, J.

(concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur in the denial of rehearing based upon the Court’s en banc opinion in Leslie v. Carnival Corporation, No. 3D06-2228, 22 So.3d 567, 2009 WL 4061430 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 25, 2009); however, I respectfully dissent on granting certification to the Florida Supreme Court for the following reasons. First, Leslie clearly sets forth that basic contract law governs this matter. Additionally, I do not believe that this case presents a question of great public importance necessitating certification to our supreme court. Therefore, I respectfully concur in the denial of rehearing and dissent from the grant of certification.