Delgado Trial Attorneys • 10631 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 130 • Miami, FL 33176

O: (305) 596-7911 • C: (305) 927-3678 • Toll Free (877) 372-0817 • F: (305) 397-2654 

www.CruiseLawyerMiami.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-22133-MARTINEZ/OTAZO-REYES

RYAN MAUNES MAGLANA and

FRANCIS KARL BUGAYONG on 

their own behalf and as class 

representatives of all other similarly 

situated Filipino crewmembers 

aboard CELEBRITY cruise vessels,

Plaintiffs,

CLASS ACTION & 

v DEMAND FOR 

JURY TRIAL

CELEBRITY CRUISES INC.,

Defendant.

______________________________/

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO CELEBRITY’S

MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND FOR EXPEDITED TREATMENT

Plaintiffs, RYAN MAUNES MAGLANA and KARL FRANCIS BUGAYONG, on their

own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated Filipino crewmembers (hereinafter 

“PLAINTIFFS”), oppose Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery and for expedited treatment and 

respond:

1. Celebrity’s most recent submission to the Court [D.E. 39] is just the latest example 

of Defendant’s distaste for following Orders of any sort.

2. The submission should not be taken at face value because it fails to accurately 

apprise the Court of the procedural history of this case or even acknowledge the existence of the 

Court’s Order Setting Civil Trial Date and Pretrial Schedule, Requiring Mediation, and Referring 

Certain Motions to Magistrate Judge [D.E. 36] (hereinafter “Scheduling Order”).

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2020 Page 1 of 7
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-22133-JEM/AOR

o 2 o 

Delgado Trial Attorneys • 10631 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 130 • Miami, FL 33176

O: (305) 596-7911 • C: (305) 927-3678 • Toll Free (877) 372-0817 • F: (305) 397-2654 

www.CruiseLawyerMiami.com

3. As will be explained in further detail below, Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery 

lacks merit and the Court is well within its discretion to deny it accordingly.

I. The Motion impermissibly omits critical important information .

4. As a preliminary matter, Celebrity claims that discovery should be stayed but 

critically neglects to mention that the Court has already Ordered that “Discovery in this case shall 

be conducted...” [D.E. 36 at ¶ 6]. 

5. The Scheduling Order and the provisions concerning discovery were specifically 

referenced during the parties’ good-faith conferral before Defendant filed its motion, eliminating 

the possibility of mistake or ignorance. Nonetheless, Defendant’s motion was filed with the Court 

and neglects to mention the existence of the Court’s Scheduling Order. 

6. Although Defendant could have asked the Court for Clarification or relief under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, it elected to ignore the Order altogether.

7. Celebrity waited until the week after Plaintiffs propounded their initial discovery

requests, a full eleven days1 after the Court’s Scheduling Order was entered, before filing its 

motion. 

8. After considerable delay, Celebrity’s first argument attacks the Court’s Scheduling 

Order’s provisions allowing for discovery under the Rules by indirectly complaining that exchange 

of evidence and testimony would be a “waste of time and expense”. 

9. Although Celebrity is entitled to its own opinion, it is certainly not shared by 

Plaintiffs, whose ability to secure justice on the merits of their claim is neither a waste of time nor 

resources in the context of the intentional acts which they contend that Defendant has committed.

1 Celebrity refers to the elapsed time as “2 business days” which is calculated from when the 

discovery was propounded, as opposed to the date the Court’s Scheduling Order was entered on 

August 20th. 

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2020 Page 2 of 7
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-22133-JEM/AOR

o 3 o 

Delgado Trial Attorneys • 10631 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 130 • Miami, FL 33176

O: (305) 596-7911 • C: (305) 927-3678 • Toll Free (877) 372-0817 • F: (305) 397-2654 

www.CruiseLawyerMiami.com

10. In addition to inexplicably omitting reference to the Court’s Scheduling Order, 

Celebrity also fails to mention the Court’s Order requiring the parties to mediate this dispute by 

November 1st [D.E. 38]. 

11. Without the opportunity to conduct discovery and investigate their claims, 

Celebrity knows that Plaintiffs’ ability to meaningfully participate in mediation and explore an 

amicable resolution of the dispute would be critically impaired.

12. Plaintiffs’ ability to discover critical liability and damages evidence that is entirely 

within the Defendant’s care, custody and control will invariably determine the Plaintiffs’ ability 

to exhaust all avenues of reaching an amicable resolution of the claim. 

13. Conversely, it is undisputed that a party with the burden of proof can succeed only 

when there is competent admissible evidence to prove their claim. Limiting a party’s access to 

obtain the evidence needed to satisfy their burden all but guarantees an outcome that favors an 

unburdened adversary. 

14. Celebrity’s strategic efforts to limit Plaintiffs’ ability to pursue discovery is little 

more than a calculated effort to obtain a guaranteed outcome in its favor. Its interest in an 

“inexpensive and expedient” resolution comes at the expense at the parties aggrieved by 

Defendant’s conduct. Claims presumably are resolved cheaply and quickly when they are 

summarily dismissed due to an insufficiency of evidence, but convenience cannot be a substitute 

for justice. 

15. Defendant’s second argument inaccurately conflates the issue of voluntarily 

litigating a dispute with compliance with a court order in the case at bar. 

16. In fact, at no point in the proceedings have Plaintiffs argued that Defendant’s 

participation in discovery will act as a waiver of its alleged right to arbitrate. 

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2020 Page 3 of 7
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-22133-JEM/AOR

o 4 o 

Delgado Trial Attorneys • 10631 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 130 • Miami, FL 33176

O: (305) 596-7911 • C: (305) 927-3678 • Toll Free (877) 372-0817 • F: (305) 397-2654 

www.CruiseLawyerMiami.com

17. And unlike the cases cited to by Defendant to support its contextually inapposite 

arguments, Plaintiffs here do not argue “that, if [CELEBRITY] participates in discovery, it will 

be deemed to have waived its request to arbitrate.” Harrell's LLC v. Agrium Advanced (U.S.) 

Techs., Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48075, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 27, 2011). (emphasis added). 

Moreover, the waiver issue raised by Defendant is little more than a red herring because even 

within the context of arbitration, parties can seek leave to conduct discovery without waiving any 

claimed right to arbitrate. See e.g. Abdul Latif Jameel Transp. Co. v. FedEx Corp. (In re 

Application to Obtain Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings), 939 F.3d 710 (6th Cir. 2019).

18. Further, Defendant’s claimed fear of waiving any legal right it may have by 

complying with a Court Order absurdly overlooks the fact that other than this Court and the 

appellate courts which oversee the decisions from this District, who would be in a position to ruloe 

on Defendant’s alleged waiver argument? As Plaintiffs have already represented to the Court, this 

argument is entirely baseless and the legal authority upon which it relies deals with cases analyzing 

hypotheticals as made evident by the numerous instances of qualifying language such as “could”, 

“if”, “may”, “possibly” or “often”. 

II. Celebrity is not entitled to the equitable remedies because of its Unclean Hands.

19. As explained in Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to 

Compel Arbitration, Defendant’s own inequitable conduct of terminating the Plaintiffs’ 

entitlement to wages on a unilateral basis is the undisputed cause of the dispute in the case at bar.

20. Celebrity has forfeited its right to any equitable remedies relating to the issues 

caused by that conduct. This includes the equitable remedy of specific performance (compelling 

arbitration) as well as injunctions (staying discovery). This alone is grounds to deny Celebrity’s 

motion.

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2020 Page 4 of 7
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-22133-JEM/AOR

o 5 o 

Delgado Trial Attorneys • 10631 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 130 • Miami, FL 33176

O: (305) 596-7911 • C: (305) 927-3678 • Toll Free (877) 372-0817 • F: (305) 397-2654 

www.CruiseLawyerMiami.com

III. The Motion unreasonably multiplies the proceedings in this case

21. A cursory review of Defendant’s submission reveals little more than a thinly veiled 

attempt to relitigate the arbitration issues by co-counsel despite being fully briefed since July 27th. 

Defendant also seeks an “expedited” ruling on the issue despite the reality that whatever 

Defendant’s contended prejudice is, the cause of the prejudice can only be attributed to its elevenday delay in seeking relief. A party’s own lack of diligence cannot satisfy the “good cause” 

requirement under Local Rule 7.1(d).

22. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 both empower the Court to issue 

sanctions for submitting unreasonable or vexatious pleadings, which includes multiplying 

proceedings to harass an adversary or cause unnecessary delay. 

23. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 "[a]ny attorney . . . who so multiplies the proceedings in 

any case unreasonably or vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess 

costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct." Macort v. Prem, 

Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 785 (11th Cir. 2006). 

24. Defendant’s efforts to continually relitigate issues, needlessly multiplying these 

proceedings violates both the letter and spirit of the Rules which frown on gamesmanship and 

semantic gymnastics.

25. As stated by the Eleventh Circuit, sanctions are warranted when a party “knowingly 

or recklessly . . . engages in litigation tactics that needlessly obstruct the litigation of non-frivolous 

claims." Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 785-86 (11th Cir. 2006).

26. Celebrity’s argument that Plaintiffs should be deprived of the ability to have their 

claims resolved on the merits should be rejected by this Court as a miscarriage of justice. 

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2020 Page 5 of 7
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-22133-JEM/AOR

o 6 o 

Delgado Trial Attorneys • 10631 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 130 • Miami, FL 33176

O: (305) 596-7911 • C: (305) 927-3678 • Toll Free (877) 372-0817 • F: (305) 397-2654 

www.CruiseLawyerMiami.com

Defendant’s motion is deficient and baseless, and accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully submit the 

Court is well within its discretion to deny Defendant’s repeated efforts to silence Plaintiffs. 

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs RYAN MAUNES MAGLANA and FRANCIS KARL 

AUSTRIA BUYAGONG on their own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated Filipino 

seafarers in CELEBRITY’S fleet, respectfully request the Court DENY Celebrity’s Motion to Stay 

Discovery, and for any and all other relief at law or in equity that the Court deems just and proper. 

Dated: September 2nd, 2020 

 Miami, Florida

BY: ________________________

RAUL G. DELGADO II, ESQ. 

Florida Bar No. 094004 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 2nd, 2020 I electronically filed this document 

using the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will automatically serve a copy on all counsel of record 

in the service list included below..

BY: ________________________

RAUL G. DELGADO II, ESQ. 

Florida Bar No. 094004 

raul@cruiselawyermiami.com

Raulsr@cruiselawyermiami.com

heidi@cruiselawyermiami.com

filing@cruiselawyermiami.com 

DELGADO TRIAL ATTORNEYS

Attorneys for Plaintiff

10631 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 130 

Miami, FL 33176 

Ph: (305) 596-7911 

Cell: (305) 972-0817 

Fax: (305) 397-2654 

Toll Free: 1(877) 372-0817 

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2020 Page 6 of 7
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-22133-JEM/AOR

o 7 o 

Delgado Trial Attorneys • 10631 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 130 • Miami, FL 33176

O: (305) 596-7911 • C: (305) 927-3678 • Toll Free (877) 372-0817 • F: (305) 397-2654 

www.CruiseLawyerMiami.com

SERVICE LIST

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-22133-CIV-MARTINEZ/OTAZO-REYES

Plaintiffs RYAN MAUNES MAGLANA and FRANCIS KARL BUGAYONG, on their own 

behalf and as class representatives for all other similarly situated Filipino crewmembers 

trapped aboard CELEBRITY cruise vessels,

v.

Defendant, CELEBRITY CRUISES INC.

Raul G. Delgado II, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 094004 

raul@cruiselawyermiami.com

heidi@cruiselawyermiami.com

filing@cruiselawyermiami.com

Raul G. Delgado, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 236969

raulsr@cruiselawyermiami.com

DELGADO TRIAL ATTORNEYS

Attorneys for Plaintiff

10631 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 130

Miami, Florida 33176

Telephone: (305) 596-7911

Facsimile: (305) 397-2654

Toll free: 1 (877)372-0817

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP

701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300

Miami, Florida 33131

(305) 374-8500 (telephone)

(305) 789-7799 (facsimile)

Sanford L. Bohrer (FBN 160643)

sbohrer@hklaw.com

Alex M. Gonzalez (FBN 0991200)

alex.gonzalez@hklaw.com

Scott D. Ponce (FBN 0169528)

sponce@hklaw.com

HAMILTON, MILLER, & BIRTHISEL LLP

Jerry D. Hamilton (FBN 970700)

jhamilton@hamiltonmillerlaw.com

Evan S. Gutwein (FBN 58741)

egutwein@hamiltonmillerlaw.com

Annalisa Gutierrez (FBN 97940)

agutierrez@hamiltonmillerlaw.com

150 S.E. Second Avenue, Suite 1200

Miami, Florida 33131

(305) 379-3686 (telephone)

(305) 279-3690 (facsimile)

Attorneys for Defendant

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2020 Page 7 of 7