Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04820/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04820-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1333 Admiralty

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLORIA YOUNG, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HOLLAND AMERICA LINE, N.V., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-04820-JST 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

TRANSFER

Re: ECF No. 12

Before the Court is Defendant Holland America Line, N.V.’s (“Holland”) Motion to 

Transfer Venue. ECF No. 12. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

In September 2015, Plaintiffs Gloria Young and Margaret Cephas-Gross (“Plaintiffs”) 

booked a 14-day Caribbean cruise. ECF No. 1 ¶ 14. Plaintiffs chose a cruise operated by 

Holland, but purchased their tickets through Defendant Costco Travel. Id. Plaintiffs allege that 

they suffered physical injuries during their cruise. On August 22, 2016, Plaintiffs filed suit against 

Holland, Carnival Corporation, and Costco Travel (“Defendants”), claiming that Defendants’ 

negligence caused their injuries. Id. ¶ 1. On October 17, 2016, Holland filed a motion to transfer 

venue to the Western District of Washington “pursuant to the terms of the forum-selection clause 

in the Passage Contract that governs the relationship between the moving party and Plaintiffs.” 

ECF No. 12 at 6. Plaintiffs oppose the motion.1

 

1

 Although Plaintiffs filed their opposition brief six minutes past the filing deadline, ECF No. 35-

1 at 6, the Court will exercise its discretion to consider it. Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ 

administrative motion in part, ECF No. 35, and accepts Plaintiffs’ corrected opposition and 

supporting declarations. ECF Nos. 30-32. The Court denies the administrative motion to the 

extent it asks the Court to consider the untimely Supplemental Declaration of John Scarpino. ECF 

No. 36. 

Case 3:16-cv-04820-JST Document 48 Filed 12/28/16 Page 1 of 7
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Section 1404(a) is the proper “mechanism for enforcement of forum-selection clauses that 

point to a particular federal district.” Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of 

Texas, 134 S. Ct. 568, 579 (2013). “[W]hen the parties’ contract contains a valid forum-selection 

clause,” that clause “represents the parties’ agreement as to the most proper forum.” Id. (citing 

Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 31 (1988). Therefore, “a valid forum-selection 

clause [should be] given controlling weight in all but the most exceptional cases.” Id. 

Specifically, the “presence of a valid forum-selection clause requires district courts to adjust their 

usual § 1404(a) analysis in three ways: (1) “the plaintiff’s choice of forum merits no weight,” 

(2) “a court evaluating a defendant’s § 1404(a) motion to transfer based on a forum-selection 

clause should not consider arguments about the parties’ private interests”, and (3) “when a party

bound by a forum-selection clause flouts its contractual obligation and files suit in a different 

forum, a § 1404(a) transfer of venue will not carry with it the original venue's choice-of-law 

rules.” Id. at 581-82.

Before a forum-selection clause gains the benefit of this deferential 1404(a) analysis, 

however, it must be valid. Because it is the moving party here, Holland bears the burden of

demonstrating the forum-selection clause’s validity. See Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. 

Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979). Only once the clause is determined to be valid do 

Plaintiffs face the “heavy burden of proof” to demonstrate unfairness that would justify setting 

aside the forum-selection clause. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 595 (1991).

The Ninth Circuit “employ[s] a two-pronged ‘reasonable communicativeness’ test . . . to 

determine under federal common law and maritime law when the passenger of a common carrier 

is contractually bound by the fine print of a passenger ticket.” Wallis v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 

306 F.3d 827, 835 (9th Cir. 2002). The first prong “focuses on the physical characteristics of the 

ticket.” Id. The second prong looks at “the circumstances surrounding the passenger’s purchase 

and subsequent retention of the ticket/contract.” Id. So long as the term at issue was reasonably 

communicated, a passenger “need not have actually read a ticket to be bound by the terms.” 

Walker v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 63 F. Supp. 2d 1083, 1089 (N.D. Cal. 1999), affirmed in relevant 

Case 3:16-cv-04820-JST Document 48 Filed 12/28/16 Page 2 of 7
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

part on reconsideration, 107 F. Supp. 2d 1135 (N.D. Cal. 2000).

III. ANALYSIS

Here, the focus of the parties’ dispute is whether the forum-selection clause in Holland’s 

Passage Contract was reasonably communicated to Plaintiffs.2 In its moving papers, Holland 

focuses the Court’s attention on its “Internet-based booking conformation and check-in system.” 

ECF No. 12 at 6. Holland claims that both Plaintiffs booked their cruise reservations through this 

online system. Id. In order to book online, Holland states that Plaintiffs “were required to first 

view and then acknowledge the terms and conditions of the Passage Contract,” which include the 

forum-selection clause. Id. Indeed, Holland claims “Plaintiffs would have been unable to print 

their boarding passes without first accepting the terms and conditions.” Id. at 7. Holland then 

explains how, within the Passage Contract, the forum-selection clause is “notably distinguished” 

by its physical characteristics. Id. at 12-13. 

The problem with Holland’s argument is that Plaintiffs did not use the online booking 

system. In their opposition papers, Plaintiffs explain that they purchased their cruise tickets 

through Costco Travel in September 2015. ECF No. 29 at 5. On September 11, 2015, a Costco 

Travel agent sent Plaintiffs written confirmation of their booking along with their itinerary. ECF 

No. 30 at 7-16.3 None of these documents mentioned the forum-selection clause. On October 12, 

2015, Costco Travel sent Plaintiffs another email regarding their upcoming trip, which, again, did 

not include the forum-selection clause. Id. at 17-27. The October email directed Plaintiffs to 

check in for their cruise on Holland’s website in order to obtain their boarding passes and luggage 

tags. ECF No. 30 at 17. Matt Nodine, the Costco travel agent who completed Plaintiffs’

bookings, recalls reminding Plaintiffs of the need to check in online during their September phone 

call as well. ECF No. 34 at 2.

After receiving the October 12 email, Plaintiffs attempted to check in with Holland’s 

 

2

There is no dispute that the forum-selection clause names the Western District of Washington.

3 Both Plaintiffs submitted declarations with supporting documents. ECF No. 30 (Young 

Declaration; ECF No. 31 (Cephas-Gross Declaration). Because these documents are largely 

identical, the Court refers only to Plaintiff Young’s Declaration and documents. 

Case 3:16-cv-04820-JST Document 48 Filed 12/28/16 Page 3 of 7
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

online system but were unable to do so. ECF No. 29 at 6. Together, Plaintiffs called Holland’s 

customer service line for help and spoke with Holland employee Sean Johnson.

4

 Id. Plaintiffs 

claim that they described their problem with Holland online system to Johnson, who then 

promised to send them their boarding passes and luggage tags. Id. Plaintiffs received emails with 

those documents just as the call ended. ECF No. 30 at 33. Page 8 of the 11-page boarding pass 

contains the warning, “IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE CRUISE CONTRACT,” and 

related disclosures regarding the forum-selection clause that Holland discusses at length in its 

transfer motion. Id. at 42. According to Plaintiffs, Johnson did not direct them to “review the 

cruise contract or accept the terms and conditions” of the contract while on the call. Id. 

Plaintiffs’ next contact with Holland occurred on November 3, 2016, when they called the 

help line again to obtain their stateroom assignments. ECF No. 29 at 7. As before, the Holland 

representative did not notify Plaintiffs that they needed to accept the terms of the Passage 

Contract. Id. Plaintiffs boarded the cruise on November 8, 2015. Id. 

The upshot is that Plaintiffs were not notified of the forum-selection clause in their Passage 

Contract until after they booked their cruise tickets and, even then, the clause was buried near the 

back of an 11-page document. For three reasons, the Court finds that this chain of events did not 

result in an effective forum-selection clause. 

As an initial matter, the Court is skeptical that a term disclosed only after a purchase is 

made and at a time when cancellation would cost up to 75% of the ticket price, ECF No. 29 at 11, 

can satisfy the reasonable communicativeness test. See Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 

U.S. 585, 595 (1991) (finding it important that the cruise ship passengers “retained the option of 

rejecting the contract with impunity”). Holland responds that another court in this district rejected 

a similar cancellation fee theory. ECF No. 34 at 7 (citing Walker, 63 F. Supp. 2d at 1090. 

Holland is correct that the Walker court described a $100 cancellation fee as a “relatively minor 

charge [that] is not an unreasonable infringement on either plaintiff's option to reject the ticket 

contract.” Id. But Holland leaves out the fact that the court contrasted the $100 fee before it with 

 

4

Johnson did not submit a declaration because he is no longer employed with Holland. ECF No. 

34 at 6. 

Case 3:16-cv-04820-JST Document 48 Filed 12/28/16 Page 4 of 7
5

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

another case in which cancellation resulted in the passenger forfeiting the entire fare, a penalty that 

the Walker court agreed would provide no reasonable opportunity to reject the provision. Id. The 

75% cancellation fee that Plaintiffs faced is much closer to a forfeiture of the entire fare than it is 

to a $100 fee. This is an extrinsic factor that weighs against a finding that the clause is valid. 

Second, the rest of Holland’s analysis of extrinsic factors relies on the proper functioning 

of its online system. ECF No. 12 at 13 (“[T]he structure of [Holland’s] online check-in process is 

designed to ensure that all passengers are ‘meaningfully informed of the contractual terms at 

stake’ before entering into the agreement.”). That analysis is unhelpful because, as described 

above, Plaintiffs never completed the online check-in process. 

Third, even assuming that Holland’s after-the-fact notice could suffice, the physical 

characteristics of the Passage Contract emailed on October 16 did not reasonably communicate the 

forum-selection clause to Plaintiffs. In so finding, the Court assesses “[f]eatures such as size of 

type, conspicuousness and clarity of notice on the face of the ticket, and the ease with which a 

passenger can read the provisions in question.” Wallis v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 306 F.3d 827, 835 

(9th Cir. 2002). Here, it is true that the contract says in all capitals: “YOUR ATTENTION IS 

ESPECIALLY DIRECTED TO CLAUSES A.1. A.3, A.4, A.5, A.6, A.7, A.9 and C.4 OF THE 

CRUISE CONTRACT, WHICH CONTAIN IMPORTANT LIMITATIONS ON YOUR RIGHT 

TO ASSERT CLAIMS AGAINST US AND AGAINST CERTAIN THIRD PARTIES.” ECF No. 

30 at 42. This disclosure, however, came on the eighth page of the document containing 

Plaintiffs’ tickets, and the face of the ticket itself did not highlight the existence of these limits on 

Plaintiffs’ rights. Id. at 35. In sum, the existence of the forum-selection clause was not 

conspicuous. 

Holland points out that Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges that they “were required to ‘Accept’ 

the terms and conditions” in the contract in order to confirm their booking and that they “entered 

into a contract” with Defendants for a cruise. ECF No. 34 at 5. Holland argues these allegations 

are inconsistent with Plaintiffs’ current claim that they were unaware of the forum-selection 

clause. The Court disagrees. Plaintiffs could have generally agreed to accept terms or to form a 

contract and still not have been given reasonable notice of the forum-selection clause. Plaintiffs 

Case 3:16-cv-04820-JST Document 48 Filed 12/28/16 Page 5 of 7
6

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

are not, as Holland claims, “asserting a breach of contract claim for a contract that they now argue 

they were never aware of.” Id. Rather, they are arguing that Holland never reasonably 

communicated the contract’s forum-selection clause. That term, not the existence of a contract 

generally, is the relevant question here. 

Finally, Holland argues that even if the forum-selection clause was not reasonably 

communicated to Plaintiffs, it was communicated to the Costco travel agent who booked their 

tickets. ECF No. 34 at 7. Through this agent, Holland argues that Plaintiffs had “constructive 

possession” of the ticket terms and therefore constructive notice. Id. As support, Holland cites 

one unpublished out-of-circuit district court case. See Hicks v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 1995

A.M.C. 281 (E.D. Pa. 1994). 

That case does not help Holland. The Hicks court did not find that a travel agency was 

plaintiff Hicks’ agent for purposes of notice. Rather, it found that the organizer of Hicks’ group 

trip, who was himself a member of that group and who had received the tickets of all the group 

members, was Hicks’ agent. The court specifically declined to decide whether the ticket agency 

that had sold the tickets was also Hicks’ agent. Id. at 288 n.17 (“While Defendant argues 

strenuously that the agency is also Hicks' agent, I need not decide that issue to dispose of this 

motion.”). Thus, the Hicks court never reached the issue for which Holland cites it.5 Moreover, 

nowhere in his declaration does Nodine, the Costco Travel agent, even mention his knowledge of 

the forum-selection clause. The Court will not find reasonable communication on this basis. 

In sum, Holland’s forum-selection clause does not meet the reasonable communicativeness 

test, meaning the Court need not adjust its § 1404(a) analysis. Because the forum-selection clause 

was the only basis for Holland’s Motion to Transfer Venue, see ECF No. 12 at 9 (noting that “the 

propriety of the original venue is not disputed”), the motion must therefore be denied. 

/ / /

/ / /

 

5 Another distinction is that, unlike in the present case, plaintiff Hicks could have cancelled her 

trip without forfeiture once she became aware of the forum selection clause. Id. at 283.

Case 3:16-cv-04820-JST Document 48 Filed 12/28/16 Page 6 of 7
7

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

CONCLUSION

Holland’s Motion to Transfer Venue is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 28, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-04820-JST Document 48 Filed 12/28/16 Page 7 of 7