Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01238/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01238-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MURRAY A. POWELL, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES and )

DOES 1 through 50, )

 )

Defendants. )

)

) 

No. CV-F-05-1238 REC DLB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO REMAND, DENYING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS, AND TRANSFERRING

ACTION TO THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF

FLORIDA, MIAMI DIVISION.

(Docs. 4 & 10)

On November 7, 2005, the Court heard Plaintiff Murray A.

Powell’s motion to remand and a motion to dismiss by Defendant

Carnival Corporation (“Carnival”), sued as Carnival Cruise Lines. 

Upon due consideration of the written and oral arguments of the

parties and the record herein, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s

motion, DENIES Defendant’s motion, and TRANSFERS the action to

the Southern District of Florida.

I. Background

Plaintiff, an 81-year-old resident of Tehachapi, California,

proceeding pro per, is an experienced traveler who has been going

on cruises for 35 years. He booked a Carnival cruise through a

Case 1:05-cv-01238-REC-DLB Document 19 Filed 11/17/05 Page 1 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

travel agent in Bakersfield, California. Carnival is a Panama

corporation with its principal place of business in Florida. 

On October 6, 2004, Carnival sent the travel agent

Plaintiff’s cruise ticket, which contained the passenger ticket

contract (the “Contract”) pertaining to the cruise. The Contract

contained a forum-selection clause in paragraph 15 on page 10:

It is agreed by and between the Guest and

Carnival that all disputes and matters

whatsoever arising under, in connection with

or incident to this Contract or the Guest’s

cruise, including travel to and from the

vessel, shall be litigated, if at all, before

the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Florida in Miami, or as

to those lawsuits to which the Federal Courts

of the United States lack subject matter

jurisdiction, before a court located in

Miami-Dade County, Florida, U.S.A. to the

exclusion of the Courts of any other county,

state or country.

Blanco Decl. Ex. 2 at 11. Plaintiff claims he did not read the

Contract before or during the cruise.

On November 14, 2004, Plaintiff embarked on the seven-day

Western Caribbean cruise on Carnival’s passenger cruise ship

Elation. Plaintiff alleges that he fell on the first day of the

cruise and suffered a hip injury. Since then he has only been

able to walk short distances with difficulty and has at times

been confined to a wheelchair. Plaintiff’s doctor, Mark A.

Pesche, wrote a letter stating, “Mr. Powell is unable to travel

due to right hip pain.” Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss at 4.

On August 18, 2005, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the

Superior Court of California, County of Kern (the “Superior

Case 1:05-cv-01238-REC-DLB Document 19 Filed 11/17/05 Page 2 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

Court”) to recover for injuries he suffered during the cruise. 

Powell v. Carnival Cruise Lines, No. S-1500-CV 256227 AEW (Kern

County Super. Ct. Aug. 18, 2005). On September 30, 2005,

Carnival filed its notice of removal with this court. Carnival

filed a motion to dismiss on October 5, 2005. On October 19,

2005, Plaintiff filed a document opposing the motion to dismiss.

Also on October 19, 2005, Plaintiff filed a document

entitled “Notice of Filing Notice of Removal.” The Court deemed

that document to be a motion to remand. Carnival filed its

opposition to the motion to remand on November 1, 2005.

II. Discussion

A. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand

Plaintiff asks the Court to return this case to Bakersfield

because the location of the court there is more convenient for

him. The Court construes this request as a motion to remand. A

district court may remand a case to state court for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction or for a defect in removal procedure. 

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2000); Buchner v. FDIC, 981 F.2d 816, 819

(7th Cir. 1993); William W. Schwarzer, A. Wallace Tashima & James

M. Wagstaffe, California Practice Guide: Federal Procedure

Before Trial § 2:1084 (The Rutter Group 2005). A district court

“‘exceeds its authority in remanding on grounds not permitted by

[§ 1447(c)].’” Maniar v. FDIC, 979 F.2d 782, 785 (9th Cir. 1992)

(quoting Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336,

345, 96 S. Ct. 584, 46 L. Ed. 2d 542 (1976)).

Plaintiff does not allege that Carnival’s removal was

Case 1:05-cv-01238-REC-DLB Document 19 Filed 11/17/05 Page 3 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

procedurally defective in any way. Nor does he claim that this

Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. His sole ground for his

motion is the relative difficulty of traveling to Fresno,

compared to Bakersfield, where the state court sits. Section

1447(c) does not make inconvenience for a party a ground for

remand. The Court is powerless to remand on any theory not

provided for in the remand statute. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED.

B. Carnival’s Motion to Dismiss

A federal court determining the enforceability of a forumselection clause in a commercial cruise ticket applies federal

law. See Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 590, 111

S. Ct. 1522, 113 L. Ed. 2d 622 (1991). A motion to dismiss based

on a forum-selection cause is properly treated as a motion to

dismiss for improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(3). Argueta v. Banco Mexicano, S.A., 87 F.3d 320, 324 (9th

Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the Court need not accept the pleadings

as true, as it would under a Rule 12(b)(6) analysis. Richards v.

Lloyd’s of London, 135 F.3d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Additionally, the Court may consider facts outside of the

pleadings. Argueta, 87 F.3d at 324. Because a Rule 12(b)(3)

motion can severely impact the plaintiff’s forum choices, the

trial court must “draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the

non-moving party and resolve all factual conflicts in favor of

the non-moving party.” Murphy v. Schneider Nat’l., Inc., 349

F.3d 1224, 1229 (9th Cir. 2003). The district court has

Case 1:05-cv-01238-REC-DLB Document 19 Filed 11/17/05 Page 4 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

discretion to hold an evidentiary hearing if resolving factual

disputes is necessary to determine the merits of the motion. Id.

at 1139. Alternatively, the district court may deny the motion

with leave to refile if further development of the record reveals

facts that make granting the motion appropriate. Id.

A passenger of a common carrier is contractually bound by

the fine print of passenger ticket if the contract “reasonably

communicate[s]” the existence of terms and conditions that affect

legal rights. Deiro v. American Airlines, Inc., 816 F.2d 1360,

1364 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Shankles v. Costa Armatori, S.P.A.,

722 F.2d 861, 863-64 (1st Cir. 1983)). Forum-selection clauses

are presumptively valid and should be honored “absent some

compelling and countervailing reason.” Id. at 1231 (quoting The

Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 12 (1972)). A court

may refuse to enforce forum-selection clause for any of three

reasons: 

(1) “if the inclusion of the clause in the

agreement was the product of fraud or

overreaching”; (2) “if the party wishing to

repudiate the clause would effectively be

deprived of his day in court were the clause

enforced”; and (3) “if enforcement would

contravene a strong public policy of the

forum in which suit is brought.”

Murphy, 349 F.3d at 1231-32. 

1. Reasonable Communicativeness

As a threshold matter, the Court must decide whether

Carnival reasonably communicated the forum-selection clause to

Plaintiff. A two-pronged analysis is appropriate that considers

Case 1:05-cv-01238-REC-DLB Document 19 Filed 11/17/05 Page 5 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6

(1) the physical characteristics of the ticket, such as size of

type, conspicuousness and clarity of notice on the face of the

ticket, and the ease with which the passenger can read the

provisions in question; and (2) the circumstances surrounding the

purchase and retention of the ticket, such as the passenger’s

familiarity with the ticket, the time and incentive to study the

provisions of the ticket, and notice the passenger received

outside of the ticket. Deiro, 816 F.2d at 1364 (citing Shankles,

722 F.2d at 863-64).

Plaintiff does not object to the physical characteristics of

the Contract. In fact, Plaintiff concedes that other paragraphs

of the Contract, paragraphs 14(a) and 17(a) are written in “plain

language which anyone can read and understand.” Complaint at 3. 

He further notes that those paragraphs are “spelled out in plain

language anyone with normal intelligence can understand . . . .” 

Id. Paragraph 15, which includes the forum-selection clause,

features the same legible typeface that is printed the same size

(1/16" high) as the text of paragraphs 14(a) and 17(a). See

Blanco Decl. Ex. 2 at 11. Furthermore, the first two pages of

the Contract each contain warnings under the heading “IMPORTANT

NOTICE TO OUR GUESTS.” Blanco Decl. Ex. 2 at 1-2. Each

warning states that the booklet features conditions that “CONTAIN

IMPORTANT LIMITATIONS ON RIGHTS OF GUESTS TO ASSERT CLAIMS”

against Carnival. Id. The warning text in both locations is

1/8" high and is printed in all capital letters in a color that

contrasts with the background. Id. These physical

Case 1:05-cv-01238-REC-DLB Document 19 Filed 11/17/05 Page 6 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

7

characteristics are sufficient to communicate the forum-selection

clause to the reader. See Walker v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 63 F.

Supp. 2d 1083, 1088 (finding that identical notice reasonably

communicated forum-selection clause to passengers); see also

Marek v. Marpan Two, Inc., 817 F.2d 242, 245-46 (3d Cir. 1987)

(holding that notice printed on the front of the ticket folder

cover in text 1/16" high, printed inside the cover in text 1/8"

high, and printed on the bottom of the ticket in text 1/16" high

was reasonably communicative).

No circumstances surrounding the receipt of the Contract

indicate that its terms were not reasonably communicated to

Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that he did not learn about the

forum-selection clause until after the voyage when he was

researching to prepare for this lawsuit. Actual notice of the

forum-selection clause provision prior to the voyage is not

necessary to meet the reasonable communicativeness requirement. 

See Walker, 63 F. Supp. 2d at 1089 (“It is well settled that

passengers need not have actually read a ticket to be bound by

the terms contained therein.”); Rawlins v. Clipper Cruise Lines,

1998 AMC 1254, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21786, *8-9 (N.D. Cal. Apr.

25, 1995) (holding that Shute eliminated the need for actual

notice of a forum-selection clause); Elliott v. Carnival Cruise

Lines, 231 F. Supp. 2d 555, 561 (S.D. Tex. 2002) (“The passenger

need not have actual notice of the contents, and his failure to

read the ticket does not preclude him from being bound by its

terms.”). Plaintiff does not allege that he lacked the

Case 1:05-cv-01238-REC-DLB Document 19 Filed 11/17/05 Page 7 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

8

opportunity to review the materials for some reason, such as, for

example, that they were never sent or that they arrived too late. 

See, e.g., Walker, 63 F. Supp. 2d at 1089 (“The issue is simply

whether passengers had an opportunity to read their tickets.”);

Barkin v. Norwegian Caribbean Lines, 1988 AMC 645, 650 (D. Mass.

1987) (noting that the proper focus is on whether plaintiff had

the opportunity to read the cruise ticket contract and finding

dispositive that no facts suggested that she lacked access to the

ticket). 

Carnival sent Plaintiff its “Welcome Aboard” brochure (the

“Brochure”) along with the Contract. Blanco Decl. at ¶ 16. The

Contract and Brochure are also available on Carnival’s Web site. 

Blanco Decl. at ¶ 16. The Brochure includes an entry in the

table of contents called “Important Things to Know Before

Sailing” which includes a bulleted entry labeled “Cruise

Contract.” Blanco Decl. Ex. 4 at 2. On page 8, under the large,

bold heading “CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT,” the Brochure makes

reference to the “Important Notice to Guests” in the Contract. 

Blanco Decl. Ex. 4 at 3. The Brochure goes on to state: “It is

important to read [the “Important Notice to Guests”] and become

acquainted with the specific conditions and limitations of your

passage, including time limitations and proper venue in which to

file suit.” Id. Along with the two references to the forumselection clause in the Contract, this constitutes a third

passage directing passengers’ attention to that provision. 

Furthermore, before boarding the ship Plaintiff signed a “Guest

Case 1:05-cv-01238-REC-DLB Document 19 Filed 11/17/05 Page 8 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

9

Ticket Contract Acknowledgment,” which reads: “By signing below,

all guests acknowledge that they have received, read and agree to

the terms and conditions of the Guest Ticket Contract.” Blanco

Decl. Ex. 3.

Plaintiff’s vast experience with cruises weighs in favor of

a finding that the forum-selection clause was reasonably

communicated. See Deiro, 816 F.2d at 1365 (holding that

passenger’s status as “an experienced commercial air traveler”

was one of the “‘extrinsic factors indicating the passenger’s

ability to become meaningfully informed of the contractual terms

at stake’”). In a letter to Carnival dated November 26, 2004,

Plaintiff states that he has “been on many cruises on various

lines” and that he has “been cruising for 35 years.” Opp’n to

Mot. to Dismiss Ex. M at 11. It is not clear whether Plaintiff

has traveled with Carnival before or whether other cruises he has

taken required him to agree to a forum-selection clause. In any

event, he is an experienced cruise traveler who should be aware

of the importance of being familiar with passenger contracts.

The physical characteristics of the Contract and the

circumstances surrounding purchase and retention of the ticket

indicate that the forum-selection clause was reasonably

communicated to Plaintiff.

2. Fraud or Overreaching

In his opposition, Plaintiff does not attack the validity of

the forum-selection clause. In the complaint in the state suit

(the “Complaint”), which he attaches to the opposition, he argues

Case 1:05-cv-01238-REC-DLB Document 19 Filed 11/17/05 Page 9 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Plaintiff claims that paragraph 17(b) of the Contract “takes 1

away [passengers’] rights to sue Carnival.” It appears that he has

10

that the forum-selection clause is fraudulent and misleading. 

Plaintiff claims in the Complaint that provisions of the Contract

conflict in a way that misleads passengers about their litigation

options. Plaintiff points to paragraph 14(a) of the Contract:

Carnival shall not be liable for any claims

whatsoever for personal injury, illness or

death of the guest, unless full particulars

in writing are given to Carnival within 185

days after the date of the injury, event,

illness or death giving rise to the claim. 

Suit to recover on any such claim shall not

be maintainable unless filed within one year

after the date of injury, event, illness or

death, and unless served on Carnival within

120 days after filing. Guest expressly

waives all other potentially applicable state

or federal limitations periods.

Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 2 at 10. Plaintiff also quotes paragraph

17(A), which reads: 

Carnival shall not be liable to the passenger

for emotional distress, mental

suffering/anguish or psychological injury of

any kind under any circumstances, except when

such damages were caused by the negligence of

Carnival and resulted from the same passenger

sustaining actual physical injury, or having

been at risk of actual physical injury, or

when such damages are held to be

intentionally inflicted by Carnival.

Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 2 at 11. Plaintiff contends that these

provisions, taken together, indicate to passengers that they have

the right to sue for their injuries. He claims that this is

deceptive because Carnival can invoke the forum-selection clause

and the passengers “will get nothing.”1

Case 1:05-cv-01238-REC-DLB Document 19 Filed 11/17/05 Page 10 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

misconstrued the language of 17(b) as a forum-selection clause.

Paragraph 17(b) reads:

In addition to all the restrictions and

exemptions from liability provided in this

Contract, Carnival shall have the benefit of

all Statutes of the United States of America

providing for limitation and exoneration from

liability and the procedures provide [sic]

thereby, including but not limited to Sections

4282, 4282A, 4283, 4284, 4285 and 4286 of the

Revised Statutes of the United States of

America (46 USCA Sections 182, 183, 183c(b),

183b, 184, 185 and 186); as well as all

restrictions or exemptions from liability,

when applicable, under the laws of any foreign

nation. Nothing in this Contract is intended

to nor shall it operate to limit or deprive

Carnival or [sic] any such statutory

limitation of or exoneration from liability

under any applicable laws.

Blanco Decl. Ex. 2 at 11. The forum-selection clause actually

appears in paragraph 15 of the Contract. See id.

11

The Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s reading of paragraphs

14(a) and 17(a). They do not give a passenger an affirmative

right to sue. Rather, they both function as limitations on suits

against Carnival. Both passages begin with the phrase “Carnival

shall not be liable” and then carve out circumstances where this

bar on liability does not apply. Moreover, these passages say

nothing about where a passenger may sue. Accordingly, they in no

way contradict the forum-selection clause by implying that the

passenger may sue Carnival in a location of choice. Thus, even

reading paragraphs 14(a) and 17(a) as giving the passenger the

right to sue would not be inconsistent with the forum-selection

clause in paragraph 15 of the Contract, and would not render it

deceptive or fraudulent.

Case 1:05-cv-01238-REC-DLB Document 19 Filed 11/17/05 Page 11 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

12

Moreover, Carnival has good reasons to include in its

contract a forum-selection clause. As the Supreme Court has

noted, a cruise line has a “special interest” in controlling the

fora in which claims against it can be litigated. Shute, 499

U.S. at 593. A cruise ship can carry passengers who reside in a

variety of locations, which could subject the cruise line to

litigation in several different fora. Id. Additionally, the

forum-selection clause, by establishing beforehand the proper

location of the suit, can spare the litigants, and courts, the

time and expense of lengthy disputes regarding what forum is

proper. Id. at 593-94. These economies in litigation can

benefit passengers in the form of lower fares. Id. at 594. 

Carnival also has a good reason for requiring litigation in

Florida: this is where its principal place of business is

located. As in Shute, the Court finds here “no indication that

[Carnival] set Florida as the forum in which disputes were to be

resolved as a means of discouraging cruise passengers from

pursuing legitimate claims.” Id. at 595. Plaintiff has failed

to show that Carnival has invoked the forum-selection clause

fraudulently or to thwart litigation against it.

3. Inconvenience of the Florida Forum

Plaintiff’s opposition brief contends that he cannot come to

Fresno to oppose Carnival’s motion. He points out that he has

experienced severe pain in his hip that prevents him from walking

more that short distances and sometimes confines him to a

wheelchair. He does not address whether transferring the case to

Case 1:05-cv-01238-REC-DLB Document 19 Filed 11/17/05 Page 12 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

13

Florida, as the forum-selection clause purports to require, would

effectively deny him a meaningful day in court. The Court will

construe Plaintiff’s statements about the difficulty of travel as

an argument that litigating in Florida would be prohibitively

inconvenient.

A party urging the court to refuse enforcement of the forumselection clause based on inconvenience of the chosen forum bears

“the heavy burden” of showing that litigation there would be so

difficult and inconvenient that enforcement would deny it a

meaningful day in court. Argueta, 87 F.3d at 325. The Ninth

Circuit has addressed the degree of inconvenience of the selected

forum that suffices to prevent transfer. Murphy, 362 F.3d 1133. 

In Murphy, plaintiff, a truck operator, was injured while picking

up a load in Kentucky. Id. at 1136. He filed a lawsuit in

Oregon, where he resided, and defendant filed a motion to dismiss

on the grounds that a forum-selection clause called for suit in

Wisconsin. Id. Plaintiff claimed that both physical disability

and financial hardship made him unable to travel to Wisconsin. 

Id. at 1142. He provided an affidavit specifying that he had no

disposable income and detailing the meager disability payments he

and his wife received. Id. at 1137. Also, because of his injury

he could not tolerate sitting during an auto trip to Wisconsin. 

Id. Resolving all disputed facts in plaintiff’s favor, the court

held that his “physical and financial limitations together would

preclude his day in court.” Id. at 1143. 

The Ninth Circuit has not decided whether physical

Case 1:05-cv-01238-REC-DLB Document 19 Filed 11/17/05 Page 13 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

14

disability alone can be sufficient to preclude a plaintiff’s day

in court. Other courts have held that serious physical

disability does not suffice. See, e.g., Ferketich v. Carnival

Cruise Lines, 2002 AMC 2956, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20052, at *18-

21 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 16, 2002) (holding that 75-year-old plaintiff’s

difficulty in traveling due to advanced age and lack of mobility

did not establish that transfer would deprive her of her day in

court); Miller v. Regency Mar. Corp., 824 F. Supp. 200, 202-03

(N.D. Fla. 1992) (holding that a letter from plaintiff’s doctor

stating her inability to travel to chosen forum, even if taken as

true, did not render enforcing the forum-selection clause

unreasonable).

Plaintiff has attached to his opposition a letter from his

doctor that states that he is “unable to travel due to right hip

pain.” He also alleges that he can only walk short distances

with a cane and would need his wheelchair to get to the court in

Bakersfield. Plaintiff does not explain how these restrictions

would affect his ability to litigate the case in Florida. 

Plaintiff does not allege any financial difficulties that

would interfere with litigation in Florida. Financial stability

enables Plaintiff to obtain the means to travel to another forum

and to secure any medical assistance necessary for this

undertaking. 

An argument that being forced to litigate in Florida denies

Plaintiff his day in court is undercut by Plaintiff’s own

Case 1:05-cv-01238-REC-DLB Document 19 Filed 11/17/05 Page 14 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Plaintiff did not appear at oral argument on these motions. 2

Plaintiff objects vigorously to Carnival’s misquotation of 3

this sentence in its reply brief, even contending that criminal

charges are in order. See Reply at 2 (“. . . so that we may

15

contention that he cannot even travel to Fresno to litigate. If 2

Plaintiff is admittedly unable to litigate in the district in

which he filed this lawsuit, transfer to Florida does not deny

him his day in court. Even if the Court completely accepts

Plaintiff’s claim of disability, it appears that his injuries

prevent him from traveling to the courtroom of any federal

district judge, regardless of whether the Court enforces the

forum-selection clause.

In any event, in a civil case, the plaintiff may have his

“day in court” without ever setting foot in a courtroom. See

Effron v. Sun Line Cruises, Inc., 67 F.3d 7, 11 (2d Cir. 1995). 

If this were not the case, some gravely injured or otherwise

incapacitated plaintiffs could not recover for their injuries. 

Id. Plaintiff’s physical disability does not require the Court

to refuse to enforce the forum-selection clause.

4. Waiver of the Forum-selection Clause

Plaintiff also argues that a letter he received from

Carnival makes dismissal based on the forum-selection clause

inappropriate. Plaintiff quotes a passage from a letter of

December 7, 2004, that he received from Senior Claims

Representative Daniel J. Blanco: “Please provide us with any

additional information that will assist us in evaluating your

claim, so that we may resolve this amicably.” Opp’n to Mot. to 3

Case 1:05-cv-01238-REC-DLB Document 19 Filed 11/17/05 Page 15 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

resolve this informally.” (emphasis added)). The substitution of

“informally” for “amicably” appears to be accidental and is, in any

event, irrelevant. 

16

Dismiss Ex. C. Plaintiff argues that this language amounts to

“ABSOLUTE ACCEPTANCE OF MY CLAIM WHICH INVALIDATES THE USE OF THE

FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE.” Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss at 3. It

appears that Plaintiff reads Mr. Blanco’s invitation to “resolve

[the claim] amicably” as a waiver of Carnival’s right to enforce

the forum-selection clause. Mr. Blanco seems to be including the

phrase “resolve this amicably” to explain why he is asking for

further information. At most, it expresses his hope that

litigation will not be necessary. No reasonable person would

construe this statement as relinquishing any of Carnival’s

contractual rights.

5. Transfer or Dismissal

The Court finds that the forum-selection clause is valid and

its enforcement is reasonable. Consequently, venue for

Plaintiff’s claims is only appropriate in the United States

District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Rather than

dismissing, a district court may, in the interest of justice,

transfer a case to another district in which it could have been

brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (2000). Where a Rule 12(b)(3)

motion is granted based on a forum-selection clause, transfer is

more in the interest of justice than dismissal. Schwarzer,

Tashima & Wagstaffe, supra, § 4:165; Davis Media Group, Inc. v.

Best W. Int’l, Inc., 302 F. Supp. 2d 464, 470 (D. Md. 2004).

Case 1:05-cv-01238-REC-DLB Document 19 Filed 11/17/05 Page 16 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

17

ACCORDINGLY:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED.

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.

3. The action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami

Division, for further proceedings. The clerk of this

Court is requested to take all steps necessary to

transfer this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

810ha4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01238-REC-DLB Document 19 Filed 11/17/05 Page 17 of 17