UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CV-60896-RAR

YORIEL AMPARO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CLASSICA CRUISE OPERATOR

LTD., INC.,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Classica Cruise Operator, Ltd., Inc.’s 

(“Classica”) Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Request for Punitive Damages [ECF No. 39] (“Motion”).1 

The Court has considered the Motion, all related filings, and is otherwise fully advised. 

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike [ECF No. 39] is 

DENIED as explained herein.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that “[up]on motion made by a party . . . 

the court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, 

impertinent, or scandalous matter.” A motion to strike is generally denied “unless the matter 

sought to be omitted has no possible relationship to the controversy, may confuse the issues, or 

otherwise prejudice a party.” Bank of Am., N.A. v. GREC Homes IX, LLC, No. 13-21718, 2014 

1

 Defendant’s Motion was incorporated into their Motion for Summary Judgment, which included a request 

to strike Plaintiffs’ demand for punitive damages associated with Counts I, II, III, and V. Defendant’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment was addressed in an earlier Order [ECF No. 79] and the incorporated 

request to strike is addressed separately herein.

Case 0:20-cv-60896-RAR Document 80 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2021 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

WL 351962, at *4 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (internal quotations and citations omitted). However, “[a] 

request for punitive damages must be stricken from the complaint if the allegations therein do not 

present a factual basis supporting the recovery of punitive damages, in other words, factual 

allegations showing wanton, willful or outrageous conduct.” Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, 

Ltd., No. 11-23321, 2012 WL 4479084, at *2 (S.D. Fla. 2012).

In their Complaint, Plaintiffs include a demand for punitive damages regarding their claims 

for Sexual Assault & Battery (Count I); Battery (Count II); and False Imprisonment (Count III).2

 

Defendant claims that this Court must strike Plaintiffs’ demand because “punitive damages are not 

available in passenger maritime claims.” Mot. at 9. To support this contention, Defendant cites 

Eslinger v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 772 F. App’x 872, 872 (11th Cir. 2019) and The Dutra Group 

v. Batterton, 139 S. Ct. 2275 (2019). In Eslinger, the Eleventh Circuit held that a plaintiff may 

not recover punitive damages in the context of a claim for loss of consortium arising in the 

maritime context. 772 F. App’x at 872–73. In Batterton, the Court considered specifically whether 

a mariner may recover on punitive damages. 139 S. Ct. at 2278.

When tasked with interpreting Eslinger and Batterton in the context of a motion to strike 

punitive damages in maritime actions, courts in this District have read both cases narrowly. See,

e.g., Simmons v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 423 F. Supp. 3d 1350, 1353 (S.D. Fla. 2019) 

(“when read narrowly, neither The Dutra Group nor Eslinger squarely control here.”). And when 

read in conjunction with Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009), which held that

a seaman “may . . . seek punitive damages for his employer’s alleged willful and wanton disregard 

2

 Plaintiffs originally requested punitive damages under Counts I, II, III, IV, and V. However, Defendant’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment was granted as to Counts IV and V. See [ECF No. 79] at 13. Accordingly, 

and despite the fact that Defendant’s Motion does not indicate which claim or claims for punitive damages 

they move to strike, the Motion to Strike has been read to challenge the request for punitive damages 

associated with all remaining Counts i.e., Counts I, II, and III. 

Case 0:20-cv-60896-RAR Document 80 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2021 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

of its maintenance and cure obligation,” Courts have only allowed claims for punitive damages to 

proceed in instances of intentional misconduct. Simmons, 423 F. Supp. 3d at 1353; Doe v. 

Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 389 F. Supp. 3d 1109, 1113–15 (S.D. Fla. 2019) (holding that a plaintiff 

may only seek punitive damages upon a showing of the defendant’s intentional misconduct).

The Court finds Celebrity Cruises and Simmons well-reasoned and will adopt the

interpretation of Eslinger, Batterton, and Atlantic Sounding therein. However, unlike the claims 

in Simmons, all the counts for which Plaintiffs request punitive damages are intentional torts under 

Florida law. See Sullivan v. Atl. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n., 454 So. 2d 52, 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) 

(battery); Hill v. Hill, 388 So. 2d 625, 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (false imprisonment); Celebrity

Cruises, 389 F. Supp. 3d at 1116 (sexual assault). These torts implicitly involve intentional 

misconduct and therefore, under the same reasoning in Celebrity Cruises and Simmons, a jury 

could award punitive damages should Defendants be found liable for battery, false imprisonment, 

or sexual assault. 

Thus, because Plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages on Counts I, II, and III are not barred 

under Eleventh Circuit precedent or maritime law, Defendant’s Motion warrants denial. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 26th day of October, 2021.

 

_________________________________

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 0:20-cv-60896-RAR Document 80 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2021 Page 3 of 3