EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION 

CASE NO. ____________________ 

CLAUDIA THOMPSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CARNIVAL CORPORATION, a Panamanian Corporation, 

and TURISMO DE AVENTURA COSTA MAYA, S.A. de C.V., 

a Mexican Corporation, 

Defendants. 

 / 

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiff, CLAUDIA THOMPSON (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), sues Defendants, CARNIVAL 

CORPORATION (“CARNIVAL”), and TURISMO DE AVENTURA COSTA MAYA, S.A. de 

C.V. (“TURISMO”) (collectively “Defendants”), and alleges as follows:

PRELIMINARY & JURIDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS

1. Plaintiff, CLAUDIA THOMPSON, is a citizen and resident of Hammond, 

Louisiana. 

2. Defendant, CARNIVAL CORPORATION, is a foreign entity with its principal 

place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida at 3655 Northwest 87th Avenue, Miami, Florida 

33178. 

3. Defendant, TURISMO DE AVENTURA COSTA MAYA, S.A. de C.V., is a 

foreign entity with its principal place of business in Cancun, Mexico, which caters to cruise ships 

and their passengers, including those of Defendant CARNIVAL, and upon information and belief 

is doing business in Florida and has substantial ties with the State of Florida. 

4. The matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum specified 

by 28 USC §1332 and involves complete diversity of citizenship under 28 USC §1332. 

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 1 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 2 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

5. At all times material, Defendant CARNIVAL, personally or through an agent: 

a. Operated, conducted, engaged in, or carried on a business venture in this 

state and/or county or had an office or agency in this state and/or county; 

b. Was engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within this state; 

c. Purposefully availed itself of the benefits of conducting activities within 

Florida by purposefully directing its activities in and toward the state, thus 

obtaining the benefits and protections of the state’s laws; 

d. Committed one or more of the acts stated in Fla. Stat. §§48.081, 48.181, or 

48.193; 

e. Operated vessels in the waters of this state; 

f. Was engaged in the business of providing to the public and Plaintiff in 

particular, for compensation, vacation cruises aboard passenger cruise 

ships, including CARNIVAL BREEZE; and 

g. The acts of Defendant set out in the Complaint occurred in whole or in 

part in this county and/or state. 

6. At all times material, Defendant TURISMO, personally or through an agent: 

a. Operated, conducted, engaged in, or carried on a business venture in this 

state and/or county or had an office or agency in this state and/or county; 

b. Contracted to be sued in this state for actions such as the present; 

c. Contracted to insure a person or risk located within this state at the time of 

contracting; 

d. Was engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within this state; 

e. Purposefully availed itself of the benefits of conducting activities within 

Florida by purposefully directing their activities in and toward the state, thus 

obtaining the benefits and protections of the state’s laws; 

f. Consented to jurisdiction for this action before this Court pursuant to 

Fla.Stat. §§685.101(1), 685.102, and 48.193(1)(a)(9); 

g. Committed one or more of the acts stated in Fla.Stat. §§48.081, 48.181, or 

48.193; and 

h. The acts of Defendant set out in the Complaint occurred in whole or in 

part in this county and/or state. 

7. Defendants are subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state. 

8. Defendant TURISMO has engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within 

this state under the specific jurisdiction section of Florida’s Long-Arm Statute, Fla.Stat. 

§48.193(1)(a)(9) and Fla.Stat. §48.193(1)(a)(4), sufficient to bring it within the Court’s 

jurisdiction, including, but not limited to: 

a. Defendant TURISMO has specifically consented to jurisdiction before this Court 

for this action as part of its ongoing and substantial arrangement with Defendant 

CARNIVAL for the benefit of and protection of Defendant CARNIVAL’s 

passengers, including Plaintiff. In pertinent part, Fla.Stat. §685.101 provides: 

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 2 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 3 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

The parties to any contract . . . in consideration of or relating to any 

obligation arising out of a transaction involving in the aggregate not less 

than $250,000, the equivalent thereof in any foreign currency, or services 

or tangible or intangible property, or both, of equivalent value . . . may, to 

the extent permitted under the United States Constitution, agree that the law 

of this state will govern such contract . . . the effect thereof and their rights 

and duties thereunder, in whole or in part, whether . . . such contract . . . 

bears any relation to this state. 

Further, Fla.Stat. §685.102 creates a parallel grant of jurisdiction as follows: 

Notwithstanding any law that limits the right of a person to maintain an 

action or proceeding, any person may, to the extent permitted under the 

United States Constitution, maintain in this state an action or proceeding 

against any person or other entity residing or located outside this state, if 

the action or proceeding arises out of or relates to any contract, agreement, 

or undertaking for which a choice of the law of this state, in whole or in 

part, has been made pursuant to [section] 685.101 and which contains a 

provision by which such person or other entity residing or located outside 

this state agrees to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state. 

Finally, Fla.Stat. §48.193(1)(a)(9) provides for the exercise of specific jurisdiction 

for: 

Entering into a contract that complies with §685.102. 

b. Defendant TURISMO has specifically agreed to indemnify Defendant 

CARNIVAL for the claims made in the Complaint within the meaning of 

Fla.Stat. §48.193(1)(a)(4). 

9. At all times material, Defendant TURISMO entered into a contract with Defendant 

CARNIVAL concerning the subject excursion, which (a) contains a choice-of-law clause 

designating Florida law as the governing law; (b) contains a provision whereby Defendant 

TURISMO agrees to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Florida; (c) involves 

consideration of not less than $250,000 or relate to an obligation arising out of a transaction 

involving in the aggregate not less than $250,000; (d) does not violate the U.S. Constitution; and 

(e) has at least one party of the contract that is a resident of Florida or incorporated under the laws 

of Florida. Therefore, the contract between Defendant TURISMO and Defendant CARNIVAL 

meets all requirements to satisfy a finding of specific jurisdiction under Florida Statute 

§48.193(1)(a)(9). 

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 3 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 4 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

10. Further, Defendant TURISMO has engaged in substantial and not isolated activity 

within this state under the general jurisdiction section of Florida’s Long-Arm Statute, Fla.Stat. 

§48.193(2), sufficient to bring it within the Court’s jurisdiction, including, but not limited to: a) 

reaching out to cruise lines in Florida and establishing long term business partnerships with 

them; b) contracting with cruise lines in Florida to provide shore excursions to cruise line 

passengers; c) entering into partnerships and/or joint ventures with cruise lines in Florida to 

provide shore excursions to cruise line passengers; d) agreeing to insure and/or indemnify cruise 

lines in Florida; and 5) deriving substantial revenues from business with cruise lines in Florida. In 

the aggregate, Defendant TURISMO’s collective, continuous, and systematic business activities 

in Florida are sufficient to satisfy a finding of general jurisdiction. 

11. At all times material, Defendant TURISMO’s arrangements with the Florida-based 

cruise lines, including Defendant CARNIVAL, and the circumstances of this case are markedly 

different than those at issue in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746 (2014). Here, unlike 

Daimler, Plaintiff has also sued a Florida-based cruise line, Defendant CARNIVAL, for injuries 

sustained while participating in an excursion operated by Defendant TURISMO, an agent of 

Defendant CARNIVAL. Further unlike Daimler, here, the principal, Defendant CARNIVAL, is 

“at home” in this jurisdiction inasmuch as Defendant CARNIVAL’s principal place of business is 

in Miami, Florida. Thus, under Daimler, Defendant TURISMO is also deemed “at home” in this 

jurisdiction. 

12. Defendant TURISMO is and has been in the business of providing shore 

excursions, including an ATV Tour known as the “Off Road ATV & Beach Adventure” (a/k/a 

“ATV Jungle & Beach Adventure”), to Florida cruise line passengers, including Plaintiff. A 

significant amount of Defendant TURISMO’s business comes from Florida-based cruise lines, 

including Defendant CARNIVAL, and its passengers, including Plaintiff. Upon information and 

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 4 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 5 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

belief, the transaction(s) between Defendant CARNIVAL and Defendant TURISMO involves, in 

the aggregate, not less than $250,000. 

13. Each year, thousands of U.S. passengers travel to Mexico aboard the ships of 

Florida-based cruise lines, including Defendant CARNIVAL. Defendant TURISMO attracts these 

passengers, including Plaintiff, to its shore excursions, including the subject ATV Tour, by 

reaching out to Florida-based cruise lines, including Defendant CARNIVAL, establishing 

business partnerships with them, and entering into contracts with them. Upon information and 

belief, Defendant TURISMO is in a business partnership with Defendant CARNIVAL. 

14. In addition to Defendant CARNIVAL (based in Miami), the following cruise lines 

regularly call at Mexico and are believed to be partnered with Defendant TURISMO: Celebrity 

Cruises (based in Miami), Disney Cruises (based in Celebration, Florida), NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. 

(based in Miami) Oceania Cruises (based in Miami), Princess Cruises (based in Santa Clarita, 

California but owned by Miami-based Carnival), Regent Seven Seas Cruises (based in Miami), 

and Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (based in Miami). 

15. Defendant TURISMO’s ATV Tour is advertised, promoted, and sold by Defendant 

CARNIVAL to U.S. passengers, including Plaintiff, for cruises originating and returning to ports 

in Florida. Defendant CARNIVAL’s website advertises, promotes, and offers the sale of 

Defendant TURISMO’s shore excursion in Mexico as follows: 

Off Road ATV & Beach Adventure 

4.6 (123) 

Starting at

$104.99 / Person 

Costa Maya, Mexico 

Moderate Activity Level 

Minimum age 18 years 

Snack only 

3.5 hours 

 Add to cart 

 Find a Cruise

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 5 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 6 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

Already booked a cruise? 

Look up your reservation

DETAILS 

DETAILS 

Discover the natural beauty and ancient charm that exists in Costa Maya while driving your own allterrain vehicle. Your group will be led deep into the jungle, through off-road paths and hidden trails. 

Afterwards, it’s back to a private beach club for some well-deserved rest and relaxation. 

The Best Price Guarantee Find a better price for any excursion we offer and we will refund 

you 110% of the price difference!*

The Best Shore Excursions We've hand selected the best local providers at every port of call 

so you can relax and focus on the fun. 

Peace of Mind We take care of the details and wait for all the Carnival excursions to return 

before departing. 

NOTES 

 A valid driver’s license and closed toe shoes are required to participate. 

 For security reasons, alcoholic beverages are served after the ATV portion of the tour. 

 The minimum age to attend this tour is 18 years old; maximum age is 60 years old; maximum 

weight is 360 lbs. 

 Guests who are pregnant, back/neck injuries, recent surgeries, history of seizures, vertigo, 

epilepsy, diabetes, heart or respiratory conditions, asthma or are on any form of blood pressure 

medication are not permitted to participate on the excursion. 

 The off-road portion of the tour is very bumpy and uneven. 

 A helmet and goggles must be worn at all times during the ATV ride. 

 Due to the nature of the tour, previous driving experience is recommended. 

 Food is available for purchase at the beach club with cash. 

 Scheduling for the ATV portion of the tour may vary. 

 Passengers may be transferred to the beach and once there informed about their specific time of 

departure. 

 Departures will take place approximately every 90 minutes. 

16. Defendant TURISMO receives the benefits of the advertising efforts of Floridabased cruise lines, including Defendant CARNIVAL. As discussed above, Defendant 

CARNIVAL’s website advertises, promotes, and sells Defendant TURISMO’s ATV Tour to 

passengers even before they board their cruise. Moreover, when passengers, including Plaintiff, 

boarded CARNIVAL BREEZE, Defendant CARNIVAL offered, recommended, and marketed 

Defendant TURISMO’s ATV Tour in various places around the ship. For instance, Defendant 

CARNIVAL allowed passengers to book and pay for Defendant TURISMO’s shore excursion 

in their cabin through the cabin’s TV. There, Defendant CARNIVAL’s passengers, including 

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 6 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 7 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

Plaintiff, could review the menu of Defendant TURISMO’s shore excursion, read about the 

excursion, see photographs/video of the excursion, and purchase the excursion. Alternatively, 

Defendant CARNIVAL allowed passengers, including Plaintiff, to book and pay for Defendant 

TURISMO’s shore excursion at the ship’s shore excursion desk. There, passengers could speak 

with Defendant CARNIVAL’s crewmembers, trained by Defendant CARNIVAL, to answer 

questions and provide information about Defendant TURISMO’s shore excursion and to assist 

passengers in purchasing the excursion. 

17. As such, one of the clear benefits to Defendant TURISMO is that when they enter 

into agreements with Florida-based cruise lines, like Defendant CARNIVAL, they receive the 

benefits of the cruise line’s advertising efforts in Florida directed toward actual and potential 

customers in Florida. As a consequence, Defendant TURISMO very much availed itself of the 

benefits of doing business in Florida. 

18. In order to maintain existing cruise line business and garner new cruise line 

business, upon information and belief, Defendant TURISMO submits annual bids for contracts to 

Florida-based cruise lines, including Defendant CARNIVAL, it wants to continue doing business 

with. The bids are submitted to cruise line executives in Florida. The bids are sent via e-mail 

to the various cruise lines’ shore excursion departments. Through these bids, Defendant 

TURISMO offers to Florida cruise lines its shore excursions, including the ATV Tour in Mexico. 

In the bids, Defendant TURISMO provides the Florida-based cruise lines, including Defendant 

CARNIVAL, information regarding each excursion, including: tour operator information, tour 

pricing, timing, accessibility, safety policies, licenses, permits and prior accidents and injuries 

that have occurred on its tours. 

19. Defendant TURISMO must submit these bids on forms created by the Floridabased cruise lines, including Defendant CARNIVAL, each year to cruise line offices in Florida, 

in order to renew existing agreements and/or obtain new business from the cruise line. Once 

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 7 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 8 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

Defendant TURISMO submits these bids, the Florida cruise lines process the forms and 

determine (at their offices in Florida), whether or not to renew and/or expand its existing 

contract with Defendant TURISMO. By submitting bids and tour proposal templates to Floridabased cruise lines, including Defendant CARNIVAL, every year, Defendant TURISMO 

purposefully reached out to cruise lines in Florida to maintain (and increase) its revenues. 

20. Once Defendant TURISMO’s bid is approved by a Florida-based cruise line, 

including Defendant CARNIVAL, a contract is entered into which governs the parties’ dealings, 

including Defendant CARNIVAL’s advertising, marketing, and sale of shore excursions and 

Defendant TURISMO’s operations and performance of the shore excursion. Upon information 

and belief, these contracts, including the one in place at the time of the incident alleged herein, are 

consummated, in whole or in part, in Florida. 

21. As discussed above, these contracts, including the one in place between Defendants 

at the time of Plaintiff’s incident, contain a consent to jurisdiction before this Court for this action 

by Defendant TURISMO and an agreement by Defendant TURISMO to defend and indemnify 

Defendant CARNIVAL in this action. 

22. The contracts between the Florida-based cruise lines, including Defendant 

CARNIVAL, and shore excursion operators, including Defendant TURISMO, typically include a 

“choice of law and consent to jurisdiction” section pursuant to which the shore excursion 

operators, including Defendant TURISMO, contractually agree to application of Florida law and 

to personal jurisdiction in Florida in connection with passenger lawsuits such as the present. 

Through these contracts, shore excursion operators, including Defendant TURISMO, agree to the 

exclusive jurisdiction of courts in Florida for all disputes and matters whatsoever arising from 

or related to the cruises booked by Defendant CARNIVAL’s passengers, including Plaintiff, 

aboard Defendant CARNIVAL’s ships. Thus, by agreeing to the jurisdiction of courts in Florida, 

Defendant TURISMO has purposefully availed themselves, and intended to submit themselves to 

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 8 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 9 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

the jurisdiction of this Court. 

23. In addition, as part of its contractual obligations with Florida-based cruise lines, 

including Defendant CARNIVAL, shore excursion operators, including Defendant TURISMO, 

must procure and maintain insurance coverage, acceptable to Defendant CARNIVAL, for claims 

such as that involving Plaintiff herein. The geographic coverage of these insurance policies 

includes Florida. Moreover, as part of the contractual obligations, the Florida-based cruise lines, 

including Defendant CARNIVAL, must be named as additional assureds on the insurance policies 

procured and maintained by the shore excursion operators, including Defendant TURISMO. 

24. U.S. cruise line passengers, including Plaintiff, who purchase cruises and shore 

excursions from Florida-based cruise lines, including Defendant CARNIVAL, and embark and 

disembark cruises in Florida are intended third party beneficiaries under these insurance policies. 

These insurance policies are in furtherance of duties owed directly to passengers, including 

Plaintiff, by Defendant CARNIVAL. 

25. Typically, once a passenger, including Plaintiff, books Defendant TURISMO’s 

shore excursion from Defendant CARNIVAL, pays for the excursion in full, and participates in 

the excursion, Defendant TURISMO transmits an invoice to Defendant CARNIVAL’s accounts 

payable department, in Miami, Florida. These invoices are then processed and approved by the 

accounts payable department in Miami, Florida. Once processed and approved, the funds are 

remitted to Defendant TURISMO. This process is repeated after every shore excursion is 

completed (on each given cruise). Each month, Defendant TURISMO sends invoices and receives 

wire transfers processed by Defendant CARNIVAL and the other cruise lines in Florida.

26. In totality, Defendant TURISMO’s activities in Florida satisfy the due process 

requirements of “Specific Jurisdiction” under Florida’s Long-Arm Statute, §48.193(1). See Steffan 

v. Carnival Corp. and Chukka Caribbean Adventures Ltd., Case No. 16-Civ-25295-

Altonaga/Goodman (S.D.Fla. Aug, 1, 2017) (foreign shore excursion operator subject to 

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 9 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 10 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

jurisdiction in Florida based upon its consent to jurisdiction); Lienemann v. Cruise Ship 

Excursions, Inc. and Carnival Corp., 349 F.Supp.3d 1269 (S.D.Fla. 2018) (foreign shore excursion 

operator subject to jurisdiction in Florida based upon its consent to jurisdiction); Kilma v. Carnival

Corp., 2008 WL 4559231 (S.D.Fla. 2008). 

27. In totality, Defendant TURISMO’s activities evince “a general course of business 

activity in the State [of Florida] for pecuniary benefit.” Stubbs v. Wyndham Mexico Resort 

and Crystal Palace Casino, 447 F. 3d 1357, 1361 (11th Cir. 2006). This is the type of continuous 

and systematic general business contact with Florida that satisfies the due process requirements 

of “General Jurisdiction” under Florida’s Long-Arm Statute, §48.193(2).

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 

28. The causes of action asserted in this Complaint arise under the General Maritime 

Law of the United States. 

29. At all times material, DEFENDANT CARNIVAL owned, operated, managed, 

maintained, and/or controlled CARNIVAL BREEZE. 

30. At all times material, DEFENDANT CARNIVAL had exclusive custody and control 

of CARNIVAL BREEZE.

31. On or about November 28, 2019, Plaintiff was a passenger aboard CARNIVAL 

BREEZE which was in navigable waters. 

32. At all times material, Defendant CARNIVAL and Defendant TURISMO, owned, 

operated, managed, maintained, franchised, and/or controlled the ATV Tour in Mexico known as 

the “Off Road ATV & Beach Adventure” (a/k/a “ATV Jungle & Beach Adventure”). 

33. At all times material, Defendant CARNIVAL and Defendant TURISMO had 

exclusive custody and control of the ATV Tour in Mexico. 

34. On or about November 28, 2019, by virtue of the ATV Tour advertised, marketed, 

promoted, and sold by Defendant CARNIVAL on its website and aboard CARNIVAL BREEZE, 

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 10 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 11 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

Plaintiff was a business invitee on Defendant TURISMO’s ATV Tour in Mexico. 

35. At all times material, shore excursions available on cruises aboard CARNIVAL 

BREEZE were advertised to passengers, including Plaintiff, on Defendant CARNIVAL’s website, 

in Defendant CARNIVAL’s promotional materials, and aboard Defendant CARNIVAL’s ships, 

including CARNIVAL BREEZE. 

36. At all times material, Defendant CARNIVAL offered passengers, including 

Plaintiff, aboard CARNIVAL BREEZE, the opportunity to go on various shore excursions 

during the subject cruise, including, but not limited to, Defendant TURISMO’s ATV Tour in 

Mexico. 

37. At all times material, Defendant CARNIVAL had a shore excursion desk 

aboard CARNIVAL BREEZE for the purpose of providing Defendant CARNIVAL’s passengers, 

including Plaintiff, recommendations regarding shore excursions and charging Defendant 

CARNIVAL passengers, including Plaintiff, for these shore excursions. Defendant CARNIVAL 

only recommended to passengers, including Plaintiff, those shore excursions operated by its 

agents, partners, and/or joint venturers, such as Defendant TURISMO. 

38. At all times material, Defendant CARNIVAL sold tickets for Defendant 

TURISMO’s ATV Tour in Mexico to passengers, including Plaintiff, prior to the cruise and also 

once aboard CARNIVAL BREEZE during the subject cruise.

39. At all times material, Defendant CARNIVAL did not provide any information 

to Plaintiff with respect to the name, address, owner and/or operator of the ATV Tour. Moreover, 

in its materials, Defendant CARNIVAL purposefully failed to disclose to Plaintiff that it was not 

the owner and operator of the ATV Tour. This was intentional and calculated to induce Plaintiff 

to purchase the shore excursion. 

40. On its website and while aboard CARNIVAL BREEZE, Defendant CARNIVAL 

recommended to passengers, including Plaintiff, the purchase of Defendant TURISMO’s ATV 

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 11 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 12 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

Tour. 

41. On November 28, 2019, as part of Plaintiff’s cruise aboard CARNIVAL 

BREEZE, Plaintiff had purchased Defendant TURISMO’s ATV Tour in Mexico. This excursion 

was arranged for, sponsored, advertised, promoted, recommended, operated, marketed, and/or sold 

by Defendant CARNIVAL as part of the subject cruise. 

42. At all times material, Defendant TURISMO was the agent(s) and/or apparent

agent(s) of Defendant CARNIVAL, such that Defendant CARNIVAL is estopped from denying 

that Defendant CARNIVAL was the principal for Defendant TURISMO, by virtue of the 

following: 

a. Defendant CARNIVAL advertised and promoted the subject ATV Tour on its 

website; and/or 

b. Defendant CARNIVAL made all arrangements for the subject ATV Tour without

disclosing to Plaintiff that the subject ATV Tour was being operated by another 

entity (and/or entities); and/or 

c. Defendant CARNIVAL marketed the subject ATV Tour using its company logo on 

its website, and/or in its brochures, and/or on its ship without disclosing to 

Plaintiff that the subject ATV Tour was being run by another entity (and/or 

entities); and/or 

d. Defendant CARNIVAL maintained a shore excursion desk on its ship whereby it 

offered, sold, provided information to, and answered questions of passengers 

about the subject ATV Tour without disclosing to Plaintiff that the subject ATV 

Tour was being run by another entity (and/or entities); and/or 

e. Defendant CARNIVAL recommended its passengers, including Plaintiff, to not 

purchase or participate in excursions, tours and/or activities that are not sold 

through Defendant CARNIVAL; and/or 

f. Until the point that Plaintiff actually participated in the subject ATV Tour, the 

Plaintiff’s exclusive contact concerning the subject ATV Tour was with Defendant 

CARNIVAL; and/or 

g. The cost of the subject ATV Tour was determined by Defendant CARNIVAL; 

and/or 

h. Payment for the subject ATV Tour was charged to Plaintiff, and collected from 

Plaintiff, exclusively by Defendant CARNIVAL; and/or 

i. Plaintiff received a receipt exclusively from Defendant CARNIVAL for the 

purchase of the subject ATV Tour. 

43. At all times material, Plaintiff relied on the above, to her detriment, so as to believe 

that Defendant TURISMO were the agent(s) and/or employee(s) of Defendant CARNIVAL, in 

choosing the subject ATV Tour. At no time did Defendant CARNIVAL represent to Plaintiff in 

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 12 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 13 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

particular, or the ship’s passengers in general, in a meaningful way that Defendant TURISMO 

were not the agent(s) and/or employee(s) of Defendant CARNIVAL. 

44. At all times material, Defendant CARNIVAL was the owner or co-owner of the

subject ATV Tour. At all times material hereto, Defendant CARNIVAL was responsible for, 

and liable for, the actions of Defendant TURISMO with respect to the subject ATV Tour. 

45. In the alternative, at all times material hereto, a partnership and/or joint venture

existed between Defendant TURISMO and Defendant CARNIVAL by virtue of the following, 

whereby Defendant CARNIVAL and Defendant TURISMO, were jointly and severally 

responsible for the negligence of each other as partners of the partnership and/or joint venture: 

a. Defendant CARNIVAL and Defendant TURISMO entered into an agreement 

whereby Defendant CARNIVAL made all arrangements for Plaintiff, on behalf of 

the partnership with Defendant TURISMO for the subject ATV Tour operated by 

Defendant TURISMO; and/or 

b. Defendant CARNIVAL marketed on Defendant CARNIVAL’s website, and/or 

in its brochures, and/or on its ship, on behalf of the partnership with Defendant 

TURISMO the subject ATV Tour operated by Defendant TURISMO; and/or 

c. Defendant CARNIVAL maintained an excursion desk on its ship whereby it 

offered, sold, provided information to, and answered questions of passengers, on 

behalf of the partnership with Defendant TURISMO about the subject ATV Tour 

being run by Defendant TURISMO; and/or 

d. Defendant CARNIVAL determined the cost for the subject ATV Tour operated by 

Defendant TURISMO; and/or 

e. Defendant CARNIVAL collected the payment charged for the subject ATV Tour 

operated by Defendant TURISMO; and/or 

f. Defendant CARNIVAL paid Defendant TURISMO, a portion of the sales of tickets 

for the subject ATV Tour after the subject ATV Tour tickets were sold; and/or 

g. Defendant CARNIVAL shared profits and losses with Defendant TURISMO 

for the subject ATV Tour. 

46. At all times material, Defendant CARNIVAL was an agent for Defendant 

TURISMO in Florida and the United States. 

47. At all times material, Defendant CARNIVAL was a partner in the subject ATV 

Tour. 

48. At all times material, DEFENDANT CARNIVAL operated and/or supervised the 

subject ATV Tour. 

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 13 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 14 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

49. At all times material, Defendant TURISMO owned and operated the subject ATV 

Tour. Defendant TURISMO was involved in providing the subject ATV Tour to Plaintiff. At all 

times material hereto, Defendant TURISMO was the agent(s), apparent agent(s), joint 

venturer(s), servant(s), and/or employee(s) of Defendant CARNIVAL and at all times acted within 

the course and scope of its employment, agency, apparent agency, joint venture or service. 

50. When promoting, recommending, and selling the excursion, Defendant 

CARNIVAL never disclosed to its passengers, including Plaintiff, the true physical challenge 

required and the dangers to be encountered during the excursion, nor did Defendant CARNIVAL 

disclose the fact that the trail used by Defendant TURISMO was perilous and fraught with hidden 

dangers. 

51. At all times material, Defendant CARNIVAL did not provide any meaningful 

restrictions or warnings to its passengers, including Plaintiff, regarding health or safety concerns 

for passengers considering the subject ATV Tour. 

52. At all times material, Plaintiff relied on Defendant CARNIVAL’s representations 

concerning the level of activity and/or dangers of the subject ATV Tour and that there were no 

notable meaningful restrictions or warnings regarding safety concerns for passengers purchasing 

and participating in the subject ATV Tour. 

53. In fact, despite Defendant CARNIVAL’s representations of safety to the 

Plaintiff, at all times material, upon information and belief, Defendant CARNIVAL was on notice 

of the hazardous conditions on the excursion. 

54. On the day in question, Plaintiff participated in Defendant TURISMO’s ATV Tour 

in Mexico.

55. Neither Defendant CARNIVAL nor Defendant TURISMO provided adequate 

warnings about the hazards attendant to the subject ATV Tour, particularly the hazardous terrain 

that Plaintiff would have to traverse while participating in ATV tour. 

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 14 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 15 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

56. Neither Defendant CARNIVAL nor Defendant TURISMO provided adequate or 

competent instruction or orientation to Plaintiff on how to operate the ATV, particularly on how 

to operate the ATV through hazardous mud holes which Plaintiff had no alternative but to traverse 

on the trail she was made to use. 

57. At all material times, the hazardous condition was hidden and concealed, thereby 

affording Plaintiff no warning of the existence of the hazard. 

58. Upon information and belief, Defendant CARNIVAL and Defendant TURISMO 

were on notice of prior incidents during the subject ATV Tour where cruise line passengers have 

injured themselves. 

59. On November 28, 2019, while Plaintiff was participating in the ATV Tour which 

was guided by agents/employees of Defendant CARNIVAL and/or Defendant TURISMO, 

Plaintiff was directed by the guides to a trail. The trail, at various locations, had muddy areas, 

some of which included deeper mud holes. While on this trail, Plaintiff approached one of these 

deeper mud holes, but was unable to steer around due to the confines of the trail she was told by 

Defendants to remain on. As such, Plaintiff proceeded into and through the mud hole. The impact 

of the ATV with the hidden bottom of the mud hole caused the ATV to come to a sudden and 

unexpected stop and caused Plaintiff to be thrown through the air and into a nearby tree. 

60. As a result of the violent impact with the tree, Plaintiff sustained a serious 

compound fracture of the left leg and was rendered unconscious. 

61. Plaintiff had to be transported off the trail on the back of an ATV to an area where 

she could be moved to an ambulance and transported for emergency medical care. 

62. Plaintiff was unable to continue on the cruise as her injuries required emergent 

medical care ashore in Mexico, first at a clinic and then at a hospital where she underwent two 

surgeries and remained hospitalized for approximately one week. Thereafter, Plaintiff was flown 

back to the U.S. where she has necessitated continued medical care.

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 15 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 16 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

63. All conditions precedent to the maintenance of this action have been performed, or, 

alternatively, have been waived. 

COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANT CARNIVAL 

Plaintiff re-alleges, adopts, and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs one 

(1) through sixty-three (63) as though fully alleged herein. 

64. At all times material, Defendant CARNIVAL owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable 

care under the circumstances. Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 

79 S.Ct. 406 (1959); Everett v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 912 F.2d 1355 (11th Cir. 1990); Keefe 

v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 867 F.2d 1318 (11th Cir. 1989), on remand, 715 F.Supp. 1069 

(M.D.Fla. 1989); Witover v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 2016 WL 661065, *3 (S.D.Fla. 2016); Lapidus 

v. NCL America LLC, 924 F.Supp.2d 1352 (S.D.Fla. 2013). This duty extended shoreside and 

included not acting negligently and warning Plaintiff of dangers known or in the exercise of 

reasonable care knowable to Defendant CARNIVAL which existed ashore or on a shore excursion. 

65. On or about November 28, 2019, Defendant CARNIVAL, and/or their agents, 

servants, joint venturers, and/or employees breached their duty to provide Plaintiff with reasonable 

care under the circumstances.

66. On or about November 28, 2019, Plaintiff was injured while participating in the 

ATV Tour due to the fault and/or negligence of Defendant CARNIVAL, and/or their agents, 

servants, joint venturers, and/or employees as follows: 

a. Failure to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances for Plaintiff’s safety 

during her participation in the ATV Tour; and/or 

b. Failure to adequately warn Plaintiff of the dangers of participating in the subject 

ATV Tour; and/or 

c. Failure to provide adequate instruction or orientation to Plaintiff on how to operate 

the ATV, particularly on how to operate the ATV through hazardous mud holes 

which Plaintiff had no alternative but to traverse on the trail she was made to use; 

and/or 

d. Failure to provide adequate instruction or orientation to Plaintiff on how to traverse 

the trail she was made to use, particularly on how to cross hazardous mud holes 

which Plaintiff had no alternative but to traverse on the trail she was made to use; 

and/or 

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 16 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 17 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

e. Failure to warn Plaintiff of Defendant TURISMO’s inability and/or unwillingness 

to ensure the safety of passengers during the subject ATV Tour and/or; 

f. Failure to provide Plaintiff with a reasonably safe, operational, and properly 

maintained ATV; and/or 

g. Failure to provide Plaintiff with reasonably competent and knowledgably guides 

during the ATV Tour; and/or 

h. Failure to promulgate and/or enforce adequate policies and procedures for 

passengers, including Plaintiff, to be provided with a reasonably safe ATV Tour, 

and/or 

i. Failure to have adequate risk management procedures in place designed to reduce 

the occurrence of the type of accident suffered by Plaintiff; and/or 

j. Failure to implement available safety standards designed to reduce and/or prevent 

the type of accident suffered by Plaintiff; and/or 

k. Failure to take steps as a result of prior similar incidents to reduce and/or prevent 

the type of accident suffered by Plaintiff. See Bever, et al. v. Turismo de Aventura 

Costa Maya, SA. de C.V. and Celebrity Cruises Inc., Case No. 18-Civ-25239-

Gayles (S.D.Fla. 2018). 

67. Defendant CARNIVAL created the foregoing conditions causing Plaintiff’s 

accident. Alternatively, Defendant CARNIVAL knew of the foregoing conditions causing 

Plaintiff’s accident and did not correct them, or the conditions existed for a sufficient length of time 

so that Defendants, in the exercise of reasonable care under the circumstances, should have learned 

of them and corrected them.

68. The conditions created and/or known to Defendant CARNIVAL occurred with 

sufficient regularity so as to be reasonably foreseeable to Defendant CARNIVAL. See Bever, et 

al. v. Turismo de Aventura Costa Maya, SA. de C.V. and Celebrity Cruises Inc., Case No. 18-Civ25239-Gayles (S.D.Fla. 2018). 

69. In addition, at all times material, as part of the duty of reasonable care, Defendant 

CARNIVAL owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care in the selection and retention of Defendant 

TURISMO as a provider of shore excursions for Defendant CARNIVAL’s passengers. Heyden v. 

Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 2013 U.S.Dist.Lexis 27647 (S.D.Fla. 2013); McLaren v. Celebrity Cruises, 

Inc., 2012 U.S.Dist.Lexis 68321 (S.D.Fla. 2012). 

70. On or about November 28, 2019, Defendant CARNIVAL breached its duty of 

reasonable care in the selection and retention of Defendant TURISMO as a provider of shore 

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 17 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 18 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

excursions for Defendant CARNIVAL’s passengers, including Plaintiff. 

71. On or about November 28, 2019, Plaintiff was injured due to the fault and/or 

negligence of Defendant CARNIVAL in the selection and retention of Defendant TURISMO as 

follows: 

a. Defendant CARNIVAL failed to exercise reasonable care in the selection and 

retention of Defendant TURISMO; and/or 

b. Defendant CARNIVAL failed to exercise reasonable care in the vetting and 

investigation of Defendant TURISMO competence and fitness to provide the 

subject ATV Tour to Defendant CARNIVAL’s passengers, including Plaintiff; 

and/or 

c. Defendant CARNIVAL failed to exercise reasonable care in the vetting and 

investigation of Defendant TURISMO’s employees/agents’ competence and fitness 

to instruct for and guide the subject ATV Tour; and/or 

d. Defendant TURISMO was incompetent or unfit to provide the subject ATV Tour 

to Defendant CARNIVAL’s passengers, including Plaintiff; and/or 

e. Defendant CARNIVAL knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have 

known of the incompetence or unfitness of Defendant TURISMO in the provision 

of the subject ATV Tour to Defendant CARNIVAL’s passengers, including 

Plaintiff, see Bever, et al. v. Turismo de Aventura Costa Maya, SA. de C.V. and 

Celebrity Cruises Inc., Case No. 18-Civ-25239-Gayles (S.D.Fla. 2018); and/or 

f. Defendant CARNIVAL knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have 

known of the incompetence or unfitness of Defendant TURISMO’s 

employees/crewmembers in the instruction and guidance of the subject ATV Tour, 

see Bever, et al. v. Turismo de Aventura Costa Maya, SA. de C.V. and Celebrity 

Cruises Inc., Case No. 18-Civ-25239-Gayles (S.D.Fla. 2018); and/or 

g. Defendant CARNIVAL knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have 

known of prior similar incidents. See Bever, et al. v. Turismo de Aventura Costa 

Maya, SA. de C.V. and Celebrity Cruises Inc., Case No. 18-Civ-25239-Gayles 

(S.D.Fla. 2018). 

72. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant CARNIVAL and 

the incompetence and unfitness of Defendant TURISMO, Plaintiff was injured about Plaintiff’s 

body and extremities; suffered physical pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, 

disability, disfigurement, scarring, aggravation of previously existing conditions; incurred 

medical expenses in the care and treatment of Plaintiff’s injuries both past and future; and suffered 

physical handicap. The injuries are permanent or continuing in nature, and Plaintiff will suffer 

the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, Plaintiff lost the benefit of Plaintiff’s 

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs. 

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 18 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 19 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for all damages recoverable under the law 

against Defendant CARNIVAL and demands a trial by Jury. 

COUNT II – FAILURE TO WARN AGAINST DEFENDANT CARNIVAL

Plaintiff re-alleges, adopts, and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs one 

(1) through sixty-three (63) as though fully alleged herein. 

73. At all times material, Defendant CARNIVAL owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable 

care under the circumstances, which includes a duty to warn of hidden dangerous conditions 

known or, in the exercise of reasonable care, knowable to Defendant. Poole v. Carnival Corp.,

Case No. 14-20237-Cooke/Torres (S.D.Fla. Apr. 8, 2015); Luby v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.,

633 F.Supp. 40 (S.D.Fla. 1986), aff’d, 808 F.2d 60 (11th Cir. 1986). 

74. On or about November 28, 2019, Defendant CARNIVAL, and/or its agents, 

employees, and/or servants breached its/their duty to Plaintiff by failing to warn Plaintiff of a 

hidden and dangerous condition known or reasonably knowable to Defendant CARNIVAL. 

75. On or about November 28, 2019, Plaintiff was injured due to the failure to warn on 

the part of Defendant CARNIVAL, and/or its agents, employees, and/or servants as follows: 

a. Failure to warn Plaintiff of a dangerous condition, to wit: a dangerous trail with hidden 

hazards including, but not limited to dangerous mud holes; and/or 

b. Failure to warn Plaintiff of a dangerous condition, to wit: the dangers and potential for 

injury from participation in the subject ATV Tour despite actual and/or constructive 

knowledge of the dangers and risk of injury from the same or similar shore excursion. 

See Bever, et al. v. Turismo de Aventura Costa Maya, SA. de C.V. and Celebrity 

Cruises Inc., Case No. 18-Civ-25239-Gayles (S.D.Fla. 2018). 

76. Defendant CARNIVAL’s failure to warn was calculated and motivated solely by 

the risk that warning passengers, including Plaintiff, of the known or reasonably knowable risks 

of the subject ATV Tour would result in a loss of revenue from the sale of such shore excursions. 

77. As a direct and proximate result of the failure to warn of Defendant CARNIVAL, 

Plaintiff was injured about Plaintiff’s body and extremities; suffered physical pain, mental 

anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, disability, disfigurement, scarring, aggravation of previously 

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 19 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 20 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

existing conditions; incurred medical expenses in the care and treatment of Plaintiff’s injuries 

both past and future; and suffered physical handicap. The injuries are permanent or continuing 

in nature, and Plaintiff will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, Plaintiff 

lost the benefit of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and transportation costs. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for all damages recoverable under the law 

against Defendant CARNIVAL and demands a trial by Jury. 

COUNT III 

NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION AGAINST DEFENDANT CARNIVAL

Plaintiff re-alleges, adopts, and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs one 

(1) through sixty-three (63) as though fully alleged herein. 

78. Defendant CARNIVAL in an effort to persuade and convince its passengers, 

including Plaintiff, to purchase its excursions, made representations in its literature, 

advertisements, promotional materials and onboard about the safety and security of the excursions 

which Defendant CARNIVAL describes as our “shore excursions” representing that the excursions 

are safe and operated with reliable and insured tour operators. 

79. As part of its efforts to persuade its passengers to purchase and partake in these 

excursions, Defendant CARNIVAL represented to its passengers, including Plaintiff, that the 

shore excursions it promotes and sells are safe. 

80. Defendant CARNIVAL made these representations with the purpose and intent that 

passengers, including Plaintiff, rely upon them. 

81. In fact, upon information and belief, these representations were misrepresentations 

of material fact. 

82. Plaintiffs relied on these material misrepresentations. But for these representations, 

Plaintiff would not have purchased or participated in the subject shore excursion. 

83. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent misrepresentation of Defendant 

CARNIVAL, Plaintiff was injured about Plaintiff’s body and extremities; suffered physical pain, 

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 20 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 21 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, disability, disfigurement, scarring, aggravation of 

previously existing conditions; incurred medical expenses in the care and treatment of Plaintiff’s 

injuries both past and future; and suffered physical handicap. The injuries are permanent or 

continuing in nature, and Plaintiff will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, 

Plaintiff lost the benefit of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and transportation costs. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for all damages recoverable under the law 

against Defendant CARNIVAL and demands trial by Jury. 

COUNT IV - NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANT TURISMO 

Plaintiff re-alleges, adopts, and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs one 

(1) through sixty-three (63) as though fully alleged herein. 

84. At all times material, Defendant MEXICO owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care 

under the circumstances. Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 79 

S.Ct. 406 (1959); Everett v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 912 F.2d 1355 (11th Cir. 1990); Keefe v. 

Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 867 F.2d 1318 (11th Cir. 1989), on remand, 715 F.Supp. 1069 (M.D.Fla. 

1989). This duty included warning Plaintiff of known or foreseeable dangers. Keefe, 867 F.2d at 

1322; Witover v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 2016 WL 661065, *3 (S.D.Fla. 2016); Lapidus v. NCL 

America LLC, 924 F.Supp.2d 1352 (S.D.Fla. 2013). 

85. On or about November 28, 2019, Defendant TURISMO, and/or their agents, 

servants, joint venturers, and/or employees breached their duty to provide Plaintiff with reasonable 

care under the circumstances.

86. On or about November 28, 2019, Plaintiff was injured while participating in the 

ATV Tour due to the fault and/or negligence of Defendant TURISMO, and/or their agents, 

servants, joint venturers, and/or employees as follows: 

a. Failure to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances for Plaintiff’s safety 

during her participation in the ATV Tour; and/or 

b. Failure to adequately warn Plaintiff of the dangers of participating in the subject 

ATV Tour; and/or 

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 21 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 22 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

c. Failure to provide adequate instruction or orientation to Plaintiff on how to operate 

the ATV, particularly on how to operate the ATV through hazardous mud holes 

which Plaintiff had no alternative but to traverse on the trail she was made to use; 

and/or 

d. Failure to provide adequate instruction or orientation to Plaintiff on how to traverse 

the trail she was made to use, particularly on how to cross hazardous mud holes 

which Plaintiff had no alternative but to traverse on the trail she was made to use; 

and/or 

e. Failure to provide Plaintiff with a reasonably safe, operational, and properly 

maintained ATV; and/or 

f. Failure to provide Plaintiff with reasonably competent and knowledgably guides 

during the ATV Tour; and/or 

g. Failure to equip the ATV Tour with necessary first aid equipment; and/or 

h. Failure properly train its employees/agents in the proper response to emergencies 

and/or passenger injuries; and/or 

i. Failure to promulgate and/or enforce adequate policies and procedures for 

passengers, including Plaintiff, to be provided with a reasonably safe ATV Tour, 

and/or 

j. Failure to have adequate risk management procedures in place designed to reduce 

the occurrence of the type of accident suffered by Plaintiff; and/or 

k. Failure to implement available safety standards designed to reduce and/or prevent 

the type of accident suffered by Plaintiff; and/or 

l. Failure to take steps as a result of prior similar incidents to reduce and/or prevent 

the type of accident suffered by Plaintiff. See Bever, et al. v. Turismo de Aventura 

Costa Maya, SA. de C.V. and Celebrity Cruises Inc., Case No. 18-Civ-25239-

Gayles (S.D.Fla. 2018). 

87. Defendant TURISMO created the foregoing conditions causing Plaintiff’s accident. 

Alternatively, Defendant TURISMO knew of the foregoing conditions causing Plaintiff’s accident 

and did not correct them, or the conditions existed for a sufficient length of time so that Defendant, 

in the exercise of reasonable care under the circumstances, should have learned of them and 

corrected them.

88. The conditions created and/or known to Defendant TURISMO occurred with 

suff5icient regularity so as to be reasonably foreseeable to Defendant TURISMO. See Bever, et 

al. v. Turismo de Aventura Costa Maya, SA. de C.V. and Celebrity Cruises Inc., Case No. 18-Civ25239-Gayles (S.D.Fla. 2018). 

89. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant TURISMO, 

Plaintiff was injured about Plaintiff’s body and extremities; suffered physical pain, mental 

anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, disability, disfigurement, scarring, aggravation of previously 

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 22 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 23 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

existing conditions; incurred medical expenses in the care and treatment of Plaintiff’s injuries 

both past and future; and suffered physical handicap. The injuries are permanent or continuing 

in nature, and Plaintiff will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, Plaintiff 

lost the benefit of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and transportation costs. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for all damages recoverable under the law 

against Defendant TURISMO and demands a trial by Jury. 

COUNT V - FAILURE TO WARN AGAINST DEFENDANT TURISMO 

Plaintiff re-alleges, adopts, and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs one 

(1) through sixty-three (63) as though fully alleged herein. 

90. At all times material, Defendant TURISMO owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable 

care under the circumstances, which includes a duty to warn of hidden dangerous conditions 

known or, in the exercise of reasonable care, knowable to Defendant. Poole v. Carnival Corp.,

Case No. 14-20237-Cooke/Torres (S.D.Fla. Apr. 8, 2015); Luby v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.,

633 F.Supp. 40 (S.D.Fla. 1986), aff’d, 808 F.2d 60 (11th Cir. 1986). 

91. On or about November 28, 2019, Defendant TURISMO, and/or its agents, 

employees, and/or servants breached its duty to Plaintiff by failing to warn Plaintiff of a hidden 

and dangerous condition known to Defendant TURISMO. 

92. On or about November 28, 2019, Plaintiff was injured due to the failure to warn on 

the part of Defendant TURISMO, and/or their agents, employees, and/or servants as follows: 

a. Failure to warn Plaintiff of a dangerous condition, to wit: a dangerous trail with 

hidden hazards including, but not limited to dangerous mud holes; and/or 

b. Failure to warn Plaintiff of a dangerous condition, to wit: the dangers and potential 

for injury from participation in the subject ATV Tour despite actual and/or 

constructive knowledge of the dangers and risk of injury from the same or similar 

shore excursions. See Bever, et al. v. Turismo de Aventura Costa Maya, SA. de 

C.V. and Celebrity Cruises Inc., Case No. 18-Civ-25239-Gayles (S.D.Fla. 2018). 

93. Defendant TURISMO’s failure to warn was motivated solely by the risk that 

warning passengers, including Plaintiff, of the known risks of the subject ATV Tour would result 

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 23 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 24 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

in a loss of revenue from the sale of such shore excursions. 

94. As a direct and proximate result of intentional failure to warn of Defendant 

TURISMO, Plaintiff was injured about Plaintiff’s body and extremities; suffered physical pain, 

mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, disability, disfigurement, scarring, aggravation of 

previously existing conditions; incurred medical expenses in the care and treatment of Plaintiff’s 

injuries both past and future; and suffered physical handicap. The injuries are permanent or 

continuing in nature, and Plaintiff will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, 

Plaintiff lost the benefit of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and transportation costs. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for all damages recoverable under the law 

against Defendant TURISMO and demands a trial by Jury. 

COUNT VI – INTENTIONAL FAILURE TO WARN AGAINST DEFENDANT TURISMO 

Plaintiff re-alleges, adopts, and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs one 

(1) through sixty-three (63) as though fully alleged herein. 

90. At all times material, Defendant TURISMO owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable 

care under the circumstances, which includes a duty to warn of hidden dangerous conditions 

known or, in the exercise of reasonable care, knowable to Defendant. Poole v. Carnival Corp.,

Case No. 14-20237-Cooke/Torres (S.D.Fla. Apr. 8, 2015); Luby v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.,

633 F.Supp. 40 (S.D.Fla. 1986), aff’d, 808 F.2d 60 (11th Cir. 1986). 

91. On or about November 28, 2019, Defendant TURISMO, and/or its agents, 

employees, and/or servants breached its duty to Plaintiff by intentionally failing to warn Plaintiff 

of a hidden and dangerous condition known to Defendant TURISMO. 

92. On or about November 28, 2019, Plaintiff was injured due to the intentional failure 

to warn on the part of Defendant TURISMO, and/or their agents, employees, and/or servants as 

follows: 

a. Intentional failure to warn Plaintiff of a dangerous condition, to wit: a dangerous 

trail with hidden hazards including, but not limited to dangerous mud holes; and/or 

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 24 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 25 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

b. Intentional failure to warn Plaintiff of a dangerous condition, to wit: the dangers 

and potential for injury from participation in the subject ATV Tour despite actual 

and/or constructive knowledge of the dangers and risk of injury from the same or 

similar shore excursions. See Bever, et al. v. Turismo de Aventura Costa Maya, 

SA. de C.V. and Celebrity Cruises Inc., Case No. 18-Civ-25239-Gayles (S.D.Fla. 

2018). 

93. Defendant TURISMO’s failure to warn was intentional, wanton, and willful. 

Further, this intentional failure to warn was motivated solely by the risk that warning passengers, 

including Plaintiff, of the known risks of the subject ATV Tour would result in a loss of revenue 

from the sale of such shore excursions. 

94. Under the circumstances of Defendant TURISMO being well aware, and on notice, 

of the true and actual dangers of the ATV Tour as that sold to Plaintiff as a result of prior serious 

injuries, claims, and/or lawsuits from the very same ATV Tour, see Bever, et al. v. Turismo de 

Aventura Costa Maya, SA. de C.V. and Celebrity Cruises Inc., Case No. 18-Civ-25239-Gayles 

(S.D.Fla. 2018), Defendant TURISMO’s actions in not warning Plaintiff, verbally or in writing, 

of these known dangers were grossly negligent and reckless. 

95. As a direct and proximate result of intentional failure to warn of Defendant 

TURISMO, Plaintiff was injured about Plaintiff’s body and extremities; suffered physical pain, 

mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, disability, disfigurement, scarring, aggravation of 

previously existing conditions; incurred medical expenses in the care and treatment of Plaintiff’s 

injuries both past and future; and suffered physical handicap. The injuries are permanent or 

continuing in nature, and Plaintiff will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, 

Plaintiff lost the benefit of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and transportation costs. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for all damages, including punitive damages, 

recoverable under the law against Defendant TURISMO and demands a trial by Jury. 

COUNT VII - APPARENT AGENCY OR AGENCY BY ESTOPPEL 

AGAINST DEFENDANT CARNIVAL AND DEFENDANT TURISMO

Plaintiff re-alleges, adopts, and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs one 

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 25 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 26 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

(1) through sixty-three (63) as though fully alleged herein. 

96. At all times material, Defendant TURISMO was the apparent agent(s) of 

Defendant CARNIVAL. 

97. At all times material, Defendant CARNIVAL is estopped from denying that 

Defendant TURISMO was its agent(s) or employee(s). 

98. At all times material, Defendant CARNIVAL made material manifestations which 

caused Plaintiff to believe that Defendant TURISMO had authority to act for the benefit of 

Defendant CARNIVAL. These manifestations included: 

a. Defendant CARNIVAL allowed its name to be utilized in connection with the 

advertising of Defendant TURISMO’ ATV Tour; and/or 

b. Defendant CARNIVAL made all arrangements for the subject ATV Tour without 

effectively disclosing to Plaintiff that the subject ATV Tour was being run by 

another entity (and/or entities); and/or 

c. Defendant CARNIVAL marketed the subject ATV Tour using its company logo on 

its website and/or in its brochures and/or on its ship without meaningfully 

disclosing to Plaintiff that the subject ATV Tour was owned/operated and run by 

another entity (and/or entities); and/or 

d. Defendant CARNIVAL maintained an excursion desk on its ship whereby it 

offered, sold, provided information to, and answered questions of passengers about 

the subject ATV Tour without meaningfully disclosing to Plaintiff that the subject 

ATV Tour was being run by another entity (and/or entities); and/or 

e. Until the point that Plaintiff actually participated in the subject ATV Tour, 

Plaintiff’s exclusive contact concerning the subject ATV Tour was with Defendant 

CARNIVAL; and/or 

f. Defendant CARNIVAL recommended to Plaintiff to not engage in shore 

excursions, tours, or activities that are not sold through Defendant CARNIVAL 

as Defendant CARNIVAL has no familiarity with other tours or their operations; 

and/or 

g. The fee for the excursion was charged to Plaintiff, and collected from the

Plaintiff, exclusively by Defendant CARNIVAL, and/or 

h. Plaintiff received a ticket and receipt exclusively from Defendant CARNIVAL for 

the purchase of the subject ATV Tour. 

99. At all times material, under the circumstances described above, it was reasonable 

for Plaintiff to believe that Defendant TURISMO had authority to act for the benefit of Defendant 

CARNIVAL. 

100. At all times material, Plaintiff relied on the above, to her detriment, so as to believe 

that Defendant TURISMO, was the agent and/or employee of Defendant CARNIVAL, in choosing 

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 26 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 27 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

the subject ATV Tour. Additionally, Defendant CARNIVAL’s actions caused Plaintiff to believe 

that Defendant TURISMO, had authority to act on Defendant CARNIVAL’s behalf. Bur for 

Defendant CARNIVAL’s material representations to Plaintiff, Plaintiff would not have purchased 

the subject ATV Tour. 

101. The foregoing acts of negligence of Defendant CARNIVAL and/or Defendant 

TURISMO were a direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. 

102. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff was 

injured about Plaintiff’s body and extremities; suffered physical pain, mental anguish, loss of 

enjoyment of life, disability, disfigurement, scarring, aggravation of previously existing 

conditions; incurred medical expenses in the care and treatment of Plaintiff’s injuries both past 

and future; and suffered physical handicap. The injuries are permanent or continuing in nature, 

and Plaintiff will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, Plaintiff lost the 

benefit of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and transportation costs. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for all damages recoverable under the law 

against Defendant CARNIVAL and Defendant TURISMO and demands trial by Jury. 

COUNT VIII - JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN DEFENDANT CARNIVAL AND 

DEFENDANT TURISMO 

Plaintiff re-alleges, adopts, and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs one 

(1) through sixty-three (63) as though fully alleged herein. 

103. At all times material, Defendant CARNIVAL and Defendant TURISMO engaged 

in a joint venture to provide shore excursions to passengers aboard Defendant CARNIVAL’s 

ship(s). 

104. At all times material, Defendant CARNIVAL and Defendant TURISMO entered 

into an agreement and/or agreements whereby Defendant CARNIVAL would advertise, market, 

and sell the subject ATV Tour to its passengers, including Plaintiff and Defendant TURISMO, 

would operate the subject ATV Tour. 

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 27 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 28 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

105. As its part of the joint venture, Defendant CARNIVAL arranged for, advertised, 

marketed, recommended, operated, sold, and/or collected money for the subject ATV Tour and 

the money was then shared between Defendant CARNIVAL and Defendant TURISMO. 

106. As its part of the joint venture, Defendant TURISMO, provided labor and/or 

operated the subject ATV Tour. 

107. Defendant CARNIVAL, on behalf of the joint venture, determined the fee and 

charged the fee to passengers, including Plaintiff, who participated in the subject ATV Tour. The 

earnings were split between Defendant CARNIVAL and Defendant TURISMO. 

108. At all times material, Defendant CARNIVAL and Defendant TURISMO, had joint 

and/or shared control over aspects of the joint venture. Defendant TURISMO had control over 

the day-to-day workings of the subject ATV Tour. Defendant CARNIVAL also had control over 

the day-to-day workings of the excursions (by way of unlimited example: the number of 

participants, the start time, the duration, the end time). Further, Defendant CARNIVAL also had 

control over the day-to-day workings of the excursions in that it required Defendant TURISMO, 

to exercise reasonable care in the operation of the subject ATV Tour. Defendant CARNIVAL had 

control over the arrangements, advertising, marketing, and sales of the subject ATV Tour. 

109. At all times material, Defendant CARNIVAL and Defendant TURISMO, shared a

common purpose: to operate the subject ATV Tour for a profit. 

110. At all times material, Defendant CARNIVAL and Defendant TURISMO, had a 

joint proprietary and/or ownership interest in the subject ATV Tour. Defendant CARNIVAL had 

an interest in arranging, sponsoring, recommending, advertising, operating, and selling the

subject ATV Tour as well as collecting money for such excursion, and Defendant TURISMO 

had a proprietary interest in the time and labor expended in operating the subject ATV Tour. 

111. At all times material, Defendant CARNIVAL and Defendant TURISMO, shared in 

the profits from the joint venture. 

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 28 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 29 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

112. At all times material, Defendant CARNIVAL and Defendant TURISMO, shared in 

the losses from the joint venture. 

113. Defendant CARNIVAL and Defendant TURISMO are jointly and severally liable 

for the negligence of the other as partners of the partnership and/or joint venture. 

114. At all times material, Defendant CARNIVAL and Defendant TURISMO therefore: 

a. Had an intention to create a joint venture; and/or 

b. Had a joint proprietary interest in the subject matter of the venture; and/or 

c. Had mutual control and/or joint control over the subject matter of the venture with 

respect to the provision of excursions to passengers aboard the ship; and/or 

d. Had a right to share in the profits of the joint venture; and/or 

e. Would share losses which may have been sustained. 

115. As joint venturers, Defendant CARNIVAL and Defendant TURISMO are liable for 

each other’s negligence. As a result, Defendant CARNIVAL is liable for the negligent conduct 

of Defendant TURISMO. 

116. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff was 

injured about Plaintiff’s body and extremities; suffered physical pain, mental anguish, loss of 

enjoyment of life, disability, disfigurement, scarring, aggravation of previously existing 

conditions; incurred medical expenses in the care and treatment of Plaintiff’s injuries both past 

and future; and suffered physical handicap. The injuries are permanent or continuing in nature, 

and Plaintiff will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, Plaintiff lost the 

benefit of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and transportation costs. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for all damages recoverable under the law 

against Defendant CARNIVAL and Defendant TURISMO and demands trial by Jury. 

COUNT IX - THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY

Plaintiff re-alleges, adopts, and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs one 

(1) through sixty-three (63) as though fully alleged herein. 

117. At all times material, Defendant CARNIVAL advertised to passengers, including 

Plaintiff, that one of the reasons that its passengers, including Plaintiff, should book shore 

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 29 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 30 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

excursions through Defendant CARNIVAL is because Defendant CARNIVAL contracts with 

professional and insured shore excursion operators. 

118. Defendant CARNIVAL and Defendant TURISMO, entered into a contract to 

provide shore excursions for passengers on board Defendant CARNIVAL’s ship(s) to which 

Plaintiff was not a party. 

119. The contract between Defendant CARNIVAL and Defendant TURISMO 

manifests the specific and express intent of the contracting parties that the contract primarily and 

directly benefit Defendant CARNIVAL’s passengers, including Plaintiff, with legally enforceable 

rights as third parties under said contract by requiring, among other things, Defendant TURISMO, 

to maintain insurance, subject itself to the jurisdiction of Florida courts, and/or to exercise 

reasonable care in the operation of the subject ATV Tour and relative to Defendant CARNIVAL’s 

passengers, including Plaintiff. 

120. Moreover, the contract between Defendant CARNIVAL and Defendant TURISMO 

existed primarily and directly in furtherance of Defendant CARNIVAL’s duty of reasonable care 

under the circumstances its passengers, including Plaintiff. Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale 

Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 79 S.Ct. 406 (1959); Everett v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 912 

F.2d 1355 (11th Cir. 1990); Keefe v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 867 F.2d 1318 (11th Cir. 1989), on 

remand, 715 F.Supp. 1069 (M.D.Fla. 1989); Witover v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 2016 WL 661065, 

*3 (S.D.Fla. 2016); Lapidus v. NCL America LLC, 924 F.Supp.2d 1352 (S.D.Fla. 2013). 

121. This contract was breached by both Defendant TURISMO and Defendant 

CARNIVAL as a result of acts and/or omissions that include, but are not limited to, the following: 

a. Failure to provide a safe shore excursion as described above; and/or 

b. Failure to properly vet the shore excursion operator; and/or 

c. Failure to properly select the shore excursion operator; and/or 

d. Failure to adequately monitor shore excursion operators so as to ensure that the

shore excursions were reasonably safe for passengers, including Plaintiff, which 

included making sure that the employees/guides on said excursion were competent 

and competently trained; and/or 

e. Failure to properly supervise and oversee the shore excursion including Plaintiff 

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 30 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 31 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

which included making sure that the employees/guides on said excursion were 

competent and competently trained and that there were appropriate safety 

warnings/signs/manuals/instructions for individuals on this excursion; and/or 

f. Failure to adequately warn Plaintiff of the dangers of participating in the subject 

ATV Tour; and/or 

g. Failure to adequately communicate physical limitations which are and/or should be 

associated with the subject ATV Tour; and/or 

h. Failure to ensure that the ATVs of Defendant TURISMO, including the ATV 

provided to Plaintiff, was fully operational and properly maintained; and or 

i. Failure to ensure that properly trained and supervised individuals operated/guided 

the subject ATV Tour as described above; and/or 

j. Operating a shore excursion which was not competently operated as described 

above; and/or 

k. Failure to provide a shore excursion with properly trained operators and 

personnel and making sure that said individuals were competent; and/or 

l. Failure to require the shore excursion operator to actively monitor passengers and 

Plaintiff during the subject ATV Tour; and/or 

m. Failure to adequately ascertain the shore excursion operator’s ability and/or 

commitment to actively monitor passengers during the subject ATV Tour; and/or 

n. Failure to warn Plaintiff of the shore excursion operator’s inability and/or 

unwillingness to actively monitor passengers during the subject ATV Tour; and/or 

o. Failure to warn Plaintiff of the dangers associated with the shore excursion not

actively monitoring passengers during the subject ATV Tour; and/or 

p. Failure to ascertain the dangers, restrictions, and/or warnings regarding safety 

concerns for passengers purchasing and participating in the subject ATV Tour; 

and/or 

q. Failure to warn Plaintiff of the dangers, restrictions, and/or warnings regarding 

safety concerns for passengers purchasing and participating in the subject ATV 

Tour; and/or 

r. Failure to adequately ascertain the level of activity and/or danger the subject ATV 

Tour posed to passengers; and/or 

s. Failure to fairly and/or adequately communicate the level of activity and/or danger 

the subject ATV Tour posed to passengers; and/or 

t. Failure to provide adequate shore excursion guides to adequately protect Plaintiff 

and other passengers from dangers during the ATV Tour; and/or 

u. Failure to provide prompt, proper, or adequate first aid to the Plaintiff; and/or 

v. Failure to assist the Plaintiff to obtain adequate medical care on a timely basis. 

122. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of contract by Defendant 

CARNIVAL and Defendant TURISMO, Plaintiff was injured about Plaintiff’s body and 

extremities; suffered physical pain, scarring, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, 

disability, disfigurement, aggravation of previously existing conditions; incurred medical 

expenses in the care and treatment of Plaintiff’s injuries both past and future; and suffered physical 

handicap. The injuries are permanent or continuing in nature, and Plaintiff will suffer the losses 

and impairments in the future. In addition, Plaintiff lost the benefit of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, 

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 31 of 32
Thompson v. Carnival Corp., et al. 

Page 32 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC 

and transportation costs. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for all damages recoverable under the law 

against Defendant CARNIVAL and Defendant TURISMO and demands trial by Jury. 

DATED: May 28, 2020 

Respectfully submitted, 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC

Attorneys for Plaintiff

10691 N. Kendall Drive – Suite 109 

Miami, Florida 33176 

Telephone: (305) 567-0910 

Facsimile: (786) 454-8905 

DAVID W. SINGER & ASSOC., PA 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

1011 South Federal Highway 

Hollywood, Florida 33020 

Telephone: (954) 920-1571 

Facsimile: (954) 926-5746 

By: /s/ Eduardo J. Hernandez 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ 

Florida Bar No. 061451 

ehernandez@ejh-law.com

Case 1:20-cv-22217-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 32 of 32