Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02464/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02464-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AUDREY PONSI,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MAGICAL CRUISE CO., LTD., AND THE

VESSEL “DISNEY MAGIC,”

Defendants. /

No. C 06-02464 WHA

ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION

TO DISMISS (2) TRANSFERRING

ACTION AND (3) VACATING

HEARING

INTRODUCTION

In this action alleging a slip-and-fall aboard a cruise ship, defendant Magical Cruise Co.

moves to dismiss the instant action on the grounds that it is brought in the wrong forum. 

Plaintiff Audrey Ponsi agreed with Magical Cruise to litigate any dispute relating to the cruise

contract between them in the state courts of Brevard County, Florida, or in the United States

District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division. There is no valid reason not

to enforce the forum-selection clause. The motion to dismiss is DENIED, however, because a

transfer is in the interest of justice. 

STATEMENT

Plaintiff’s cruise ticket was reserved by her daughter, Roxanne Ponsi, in 2004. The

ticket was received by plaintiff on July 1, 2005. She boarded the ship Disney Magic on July 23,

2005. Upon embarking that day, she signed a cruise contract signature form, thus
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

2

acknowledging that she had read, understood and received a copy of the cruise contract. The

cruise contract contains the following provisions:

Guest accepts this Cruise Contract subject to all the terms,

conditions, limitations, exceptions and provisions contained

herein. ¶ . . . 

The Cruise Contract shall be deemed to be an undertaking and

acknowledgment by Guest . . . that [she] accept[s] and agree[s] to

all the terms and conditions herein. ¶ . . . 

IT IS AGREED BY AND BETWEEN GUEST AND CARRIER

THAT ALL CLAIMS, DISPUTES AND MATTERS

WHATSOEVER ARISING UNDER, ARISING OUT OF, OR

RELATING TO THIS CRUISE CONTRACT SHALL BE

LITIGATED, IF AT ALL, IN AND BEFORE ANY COURT OF

COMPETENT JURISDICTION LOCATED IN BREVARD

COUNTY, FLORIDA, U.S.A., OR THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA,

ORLANDO DIVISION, TO THE EXCLUSION OF COURTS

LOCATED IN ANY OTHER COUNTY, DISTRICT, STATE,

COUNTRY, TERRITORY OR POSSESSION

(Santiago Decl. ¶¶ 7–9, 12, 13, Exhs. 2–5). 

Plaintiff claims that she slipped and fell on a wet deck aboard the ship. She claims the

deck was wet due to defendants’ negligence. Her kneecap was broken in the accident. She

filed suit in California state court. The action was removed here (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 5, 6; Notice of

Removal; Simons Decl. ¶ 2). 

ANALYSIS

Magical Cruise invokes Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)–(b)(3) in asking for

dismissal of this action. The first two provisions invoke lack of subject-matter or personal

jurisdiction. Rule 12(b)(3), however, relates to improper venue and is dispositive. This order

therefore does not address arguments for dismissal under the first two rules. 

Plaintiff does not contest that the forum-selection clause applies to the instant action. 

Her only argument against enforcement of the clause is that “the economic and physical

hardships to Ms. Ponsi from enforcement of the forum selection clause would deprive her of her

day in court, and the clause therefore should not be enforced” (Opp. 1–2). Since her injury,

allegedly aboard the cruise ship, she cannot walk more than one block. She uses an electric cart

for shopping and other day-to-day chores. Plaintiff, who is 79, and her husband depend upon

Social Security benefits and an American Airlines pension for a maximum total monthly
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28 * Judge Henderson also based his ruling on a second reason: that the plaintiffs were “seeking to vindicate

important civil rights.” Walker, 107 F. Supp. 2d at 1138. Plaintiff here presents no such argument. 

3

income of $2,700. They own a home, subject to a mortgage. Plaintiff can fly for free aboard

American Airlines. If she traveled to Florida, however, she would have to get a caregiver for

her husband. His medical condition bars him from flying (Ponsi Decl. ¶¶ 1–2). 

Plaintiff cites only one decision in support of not enforcing the clause. In Walker v.

Carnival Cruise Lines, 107 F. Supp. 2d 1135 (N.D. Cal. 2000), two plaintiffs alleged that a

cruise company had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to provide

accessible accommodations aboard the ship. Judge Thelton Henderson denied one defendant’s

motion to dismiss for improper venue, ruling that the forum-selection clause in the cruise

contract would not be enforced because “plaintiffs’ physical disabilities and economic

constraints are so severe that, in combination, they would preclude plaintiffs from having their

day in court.” Id. at 1138.*

 

In Walker, one of the plaintiffs was incontinent and unable to use airplane restrooms due

to the width of her wheelchair. She had suffered repeated humiliation when fellow airline 

passengers complained about her urinary and bowel accidents. She submitted evidence that she

would rather drop the lawsuit than suffer the humiliation she expected from flying to the

designated forum in Florida. The other plaintiff was “wheelchair bound with limited bladder

and bowel control[,] thus requiring immediate restroom access at all times.” By train, her travel

time would have increased to 3.5 days each way, at a cost of $1,858. The trip by automobile

would have taken the plaintiff at least five days. One of the plaintiffs had, with her husband and

two children, only $400 per month for food and discretionary expenses. The other plaintiff had

a family of three with $700 for food and discretionary expenses. Id. at 1141 (internal quotation

marks omitted). 

By contrast, plaintiff here is not incontinent and can walk short distances. She can fly

for free. She and her husband have $2,700 in monthly income. (That money is divided between

two people, not three or four, as in Walker.) She might be able to avoid flying to Florida
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

4

entirely. Her lawyers probably can attend most if not all hearings in Florida alone. Once before

the district court in Florida, she can move to transfer for convenience. 

The ruling in Walker was premised on the conclusion that the plaintiffs’ economic and

physical problems were so great that moving their case to Florida effectively would deprive

them of their day in court. See id. at 1138. No so here. There is no reason not to enforce the

clause. 

Plaintiff requested in her opposition that, if venue is improper here, the action not be

dismissed but instead be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District

of Florida. Such a transfer is warranted under 28 U.S.C. 1406(a), which provides that “[t]he

district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong . . . district shall

dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which

it could have been brought.” Transfer is a more efficient and just outcome than dismissal

because, at the very least, it will save plaintiff money while not impairing any of Magical

Cruise’s contract rights. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the ACTION IS TRANSFERRED to the Orlando Division of

the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. THE CLERK HERE IS

ORDERED TO TAKE ALL STEPS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THIS.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE