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

RYAN MAUNES MAGLANA

and FRANCIS KARL

BUGAYONG on their own behalf 

and as a class representatives of all

other similarly situated Filipino 

crewmembers trapped aboard

CELEBRITY cruise vessels,

Plaintiffs,

CLASS ACTION & 

v DEMAND FOR 

JURY TRIAL

CELEBRITY CRUISES INC.,

Defendant.

______________________________/

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES 

Plaintiffs, RYAN MAUNES MAGLANA and KARL FRANCIS BUGAYONG, on 

their own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated Filipino crewmembers 

trapped onboard CELEBRITY cruise vessels (hereinafter “PLAINTIFFS”), through 

undersigned counsel and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 (a)(1)(B), hereby 

sue Defendant, CELEBRITY CRUISES INC. (hereinafter “CELEBRITY”), and allege:

JURISDICTION AND PARTIES 

1. This case arises out of Defendant’s systemic, companywide discriminatory 

treatment of its Filipino employees in violation of federal and applicable state civil rights 

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 1 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

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

laws, including but not limited to under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title 

VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. prohibiting discrimination on the basis of national origin 

in employment. However, at the time this submission was filed with the Court, Plaintiffs 

have submitted charges to the EEOC, but have not yet received the “Right to Sue” Notice 

from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter “EEOC”) due to the 

agency’s decision to suspend the issuance of notices indefinitely due to the Coronavirus 

pandemic. Plaintiffs concede that this may render Defendant’s discriminatory conduct 

not ripe for adjudication for the time being but respectfully submit to the Court that the 

interests of justice demand a remedy for individuals who are suffering discrimination 

and the exigent circumstances involved in this crisis provide ample support for the Court 

to enter relief in their favor.

2. Plaintiff, RYAN MAUNES MAGLANA, is a citizen of the Philippines and 

was employed by Defendant on its vessel the Millennium. Plaintiff MAGLANA was an 

employee of Defendant CELEBRITY for over 14 years and during his most recent contract 

of employment with Defendant was employed as a Beverage Controller onboard the 

Millennium.

3. Plaintiff FRANCIS KARL BUGAYONG, is a citizen of the Philippines and 

was employed by Defendant on its vessel the Millennium. Plaintiff BUGAYONG was an 

employee of Defendant CELEBRITY for over 4 years and during his most recent contract 

of employment with Defendant was employed as a Bar Storekeeper onboard the 

Millennium.

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 2 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

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

4. Defendant, CELEBRITY CRUISES INC., is a foreign entity which conducts 

its business from its principal place of business in Miami, Florida.

5. This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 because this action is brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. prohibiting discrimination in 

employment on the basis of national origin.

6. In the alternative, Plaintiffs allege that this Court has original subject matter 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333 under the Court’s admiralty jurisdiction.

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

Maritime law of the United States and/or 46 U.S.C. Section 10313. The claims exceed the 

jurisdictional amount of this court, exclusive of interest and costs. This controversy is a 

class action brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and pursuant to 28 U.S.C 

§ 1332(d)(2) in addition to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. 

8. Defendant, CELEBRITY, at all times material, personally or through an 

agent:

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

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

county;

b. Was engaged in substantial business activity within this state;

c. Operated vessels in the waters of this state;

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 3 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

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

d. Committed one or more of the acts stated in Florida Statutes, Sections 

48.081, 48.181 or 48.193; and/or

e. The acts of Defendant set out in this Complaint occurred in whole or in part 

in this county and/or state.

9. Defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts of this state.

10. At all times material hereto, Defendant owned, operated, managed, 

maintained and/or controlled a fleet of cruise ships, including the cruise vessel Celebrity 

Millennium where Plaintiff MAGLANA & BUGAYONG were held captive in addition to 

and thirteen (13) sister cruise ships and expedition ships in its worldwide fleet, including 

in no specific order, the: Silhouette, Apex, Solstice, Summit, Eclipse, Equinox, Edge, Infinity, 

Reflection, Constellation, Flor1, Expedition2, and Exploration3.

11. At all times material hereto, Defendant operated the vessels in navigable 

waters.

12. At all times material hereto, the Celebrity Millennium and Eclipse were

docked at the port in San Diego, California, and subject to the jurisdiction of the US 

federal courts, but at all times material, the vessel was operational and capable of 

navigation.

13. At all times material hereto, Defendant's base of operations and corporate 

headquarters are located in Miami, Florida.

1, These ships are smaller “expedition” class ships which Celebrity uses for voyages to 

ecologic sanctuaries such as the Galapagos Islands.

2 Id. 

3 Id. 

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 4 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

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

14. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs were “seamen” aboard their 

respective vessel to which they were assigned by Defendant to work, as the term 

“seamen” is defined under U.S. General Maritime Law and/or Title 46 of the U.S. Code

§ 10101.

15. “Seamen from the start were wards of admiralty.” U.S. Bulk Carriers, Inc. v. 

Arguelles, 400 U.S. 351, 355 (1971) (citing Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 287 (1897)). In 

1823, Justice Story declared: “Every Court should watch with jealousy an encroachment 

upon the rights of a seaman, because they are unprotected and need counsel; because 

they are thoughtless and require indulgence; because they are credulous and complying; 

and are easily overreached. But Courts of maritime law have been in the constant habit 

of extending towards them a peculiar, protecting favor and guardianship. They are 

emphatically the wards of the admiralty.” Harden v. Gordon, 11 Fed. Cas. 480 (No. 6047) 

(C.C. Me 1823). “From the earliest times maritime nations have recognized that unique 

hazards, emphasized by unusual tenure and control, attend the work of seafarer.” See 

Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, 318 U.S. 724, 727 (1943). The Aguilar Court further 

held: “the restrictions which accompany living aboard ship for long periods at a time 

combine with the constant shuttling between unfamiliar ports to deprive the seaman 

of the comforts and opportunities for leisure, essential for living and working that 

accompany most land occupations.” Id. at 728. (emphasis added)

16. In Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the longstanding 

principle that seafarers are wards of Admiralty Courts, given the “feature of the maritime 

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 5 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

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

law that compensate[es] or offset[s] the special hazards and disadvantages to which they 

who go down to sea in ships are subjected.” 515 U.S. 347, 355 (1995). The Fifth Circuit Court 

of Appeals explained the rationale for affording seafarers special protections in Castillo v. 

Spiliada Maritime Corp.,: “[Seafarers] enjoy this status because they occupy a unique position. 

A seaman isolated on a ship on the high seas is often vulnerable to the exploitation of his 

employer. Moreover, there exists a great inequality in bargaining position between large 

ship-owners and unsophisticated seafarer. Shipowners generally control the availability 

and terms of employment.” 937 F.2d 240, 243 (5th Cir. 1991) (emphasis added).

17. Accordingly, the Admiralty Courts have a rich tradition of protecting 

seafarers, which flows from the uniquely abhorrent conditions seafarers face at sea. And 

it is not just the Courts which recognize the need to protect seafarers, as “[t]he policy of 

Congress, as evidenced by its’ legislation, has been to deal with [seafarers] as a favored 

class.” Bainbridge v. Merchants' & Miners' Transp. Co., 287 U.S. 278 (1932).

18. Plaintiffs including class representatives MAGLANA and BUGAYONG, and 

their fellow Filipino class members worked for Defendant aboard Defendant’s vessels, 

were employees of Defendant until it unilaterally terminated their contracts at various 

points in time since the CDC’s March 14th no-sail Order and stopped paying agreed upon 

wages shortly thereafter.

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS PERTAINING TO

DEFENDANT’S UNLAWFUL CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW & U.S. LAW

19. The basis of the class action stems from Defendant CELEBRITY’s callous 

and inhumane business decision to keep crew members from specific countries captive

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 6 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

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

on board its passenger-less ships with no wages and no hopes of going home to family 

members in need, including infants, children, and elderly parents.

20. Despite having actual knowledge that the CDC had issued a no sail order 

as early as March 14, 2020 and the supplemental orders issued thereafter have prohibited

cruise ships from operating in US waters through at least midsummer, a date which 

remains at risk to be delayed even further. 

21. In fact, the Millennium where Plaintiff MAGLANA is currently being held 

captive has been without passengers since February 10th, 2020, nearly 100 days ago.

22. At that time, only Vietnam and Singapore would agree to allow the ship to 

dock at their respective ports after rejections at Hong Kong and Thailand. The ship stayed 

in Singapore after disembarking its last passengers on February 10th until February 14th, 

when the vessel departed from Singapore and sailed east to Manila, arriving in the 

Philippine capital on February 19th, 2020.

23. At the time, many of the vessel’s Filipino seafarers were excited at the 

prospect of returning to their home country and hopeful that they would be allowed to 

return home if the company was going to cancel cruises.

24. Unfortunately, the excitement was short lived and left just as quickly as it 

came. Less than twenty-four (24) hours after arriving in Manila Bay, PLAINTIFFS 

onboard the Millennium were cruelly taken from Manila in what felt like moments the 

ship’s Filipino seafarers eager to return home to their loved ones. 

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 7 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

o 8 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

25. The only crewmembers that were allowed to disembark for repatriation 

were those that both had concluded their contracts and had a suitable replacement 

onboard. 

26. CELEBRITY, apparently oblivious to the media frenzy that was beginning 

across the globe which had begun to focus on the cruise lines collective role in facilitating 

the virus’s spread, and the ancillary fact that ships in its fleet, Millennium included, had 

already been passenger-less for close to 10 days.

27. The ship’s remaining Filipino crew were prevented from disembarking the 

ship despite it being obvious that there would be little need for vessels to be fully manned 

for the foreseeable future.

28. Despite the pleas of crewmembers on board to be allowed to disembark in 

their home port of Manila, Celebrity elected to refuel the Millennium and continue 

eastward to the western U.S. seaboard after a stop in Honolulu. The stop in Honolulu on 

March 1st came and went but the company was still reluctant to make a final decision to 

repatriate its crew, so the vessel sailed on eastward. Finally, the ship arrived in Ensenada, 

Baja California in Mexico on March 11, 2020. 

29. In the interim, on March 13th, 2020, Royal Caribbean, CELEBRITY's parent 

company, suspended all of its future cruises, including those associated with its 

subsidiary companies, such as CELEBRITY. The following day, on or about March 14, 

2020, the CDC issued its first No Sail Order. 

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 8 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

o 9 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

30. Thus, without any doubt whatsoever, Defendant CELEBRITY knew that 

passenger cruises in the U.S. would be canceled until the C.D.C.’s No Sail Order is lifted, 

eventually. 

31. Nonetheless, after 64 days since the C.D.C. issued the first no-sail order 

back on March 14th, the Millennium holds nearly 1000 Filipino crew members on board. 

Upon information and belief, there are at least 1700 Filipino seafarers being held captive 

throughout CELEBRITY’s fleet, and nearly 7,000 between those employed by Royal 

Caribbean Cruise Line, Azamara Cruise Line, Celebrity Cruise Line, and the other minor 

subsidiary brands owned by the Royal Caribbean/Celebrity holding entity.

32. The ship departed Ensenada 8 days later on March 19, 2020. Before leaving 

Ensenada, some crewmembers were allowed to disembark and sign-off. Many of the 

Filipino seafarers sought leave to sign off the ship at that point, but were denied 

permission due to the “lack of a replacement.”

33. The ship finally arrived at San Diego on March 20, 2020, which is also where 

it is currently located and his been at all times material other than a brief trip for 

provisions in late March.

34. Upon information and belief, will remain there until the CDC rescinds its 

no-sail order as the vessel is scheduled to sail on Alaskan and Pacific Northwest 

itineraries in the second half of 2020.

35. Defendant’s failure to repatriate its Filipino seafarers unfortunately is not 

the extent of its unscrupulous conduct. In addition to holding its crewmembers hostage, 

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 9 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

o 10 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

against their will, and with little or no payment of wages, the Defendant has engaged in 

a campaign of disinformation and deception in an effort to avoid mutiny or rebellion on 

board.

36. Plaintiff MAGLANA was held without wages since his contract was 

terminated by Defendant on March 30th. He was advised when he was terminated that 

he would be repatriated on April 1, 2020, in accordance with the terms of the Collective 

Bargaining Agreement that Defendant negotiated with the Italian labor union it requires 

all its employees to join. 

37. Plaintiff BUGAYONG was held without wages since his contract was 

terminated by Defendant on March 30th. He was also advised when he was terminated 

that he would be repatriated on April 1, 2020, in accordance with the terms of the 

Collective Bargaining Agreement (hereinafter “CBA”) referenced in paragraph 36 above.

38. Nonetheless, and despite the unequivocal right of seafarers to be paid for 

their time on board Defendant’s vessels under both U.S. law and the CBA, CELEBRITY 

failed to pay its Filipino employees, including Plaintiffs, at various times after the March 

14, 2020 no-sail order. 

39. Defendant had an absolute obligation to pay Plaintiffs their wages until 

they were repatriated but despite its obligations under the terms of the CBA by which it 

is contractually bound, in addition to U.S. law and International law (Maritime Labor 

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 10 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

o 11 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

Convention of 2006 which is ratified by Malta4, the flag state of all Defendant’s nonexpedition class cruise vessels). 

40. Defendant held, and continues to hold, thousands of souls captive aboard

its fleet, including the Plaintiffs, for months without wages or the ability to disembark the 

ship and return home, for no justifiable reason. Although the dates they were last paid 

varies across the class, they have all been held for weeks, and even months, without pay 

or a ticket home. 

41. Plaintiffs MAGLANA and BUGAYONG were told their April 2

st flight had 

been rescheduled to April 8

h, then the 16th, and 26th, 28th, and the 11th/12th May 

tentatively, so on and so forth. Not surprisingly, these too were all canceled.

42. But why would the cruise lines, and specifically Defendant delay 

repatriation of its crew? The answer, as is usually the case with the cruise industry, comes 

down to dollars and cents: profits are far more important than a replaceable crewmember 

and if someone doesn’t like it, there’s an eager replacement that will gladly accept an 

offer to work on a ship that would pay them over $1200 a month for 75 hours of work per 

work week as an average for 6-9 months.

43. As has been the case since at least April 23rd, the CDC has not only allowed 

cruise line crew repatriations from seaports in the U.S., they have provided the cruise 

lines with a detailed protocol of how to do it to avoid and legal consequences:

4 List of countries that have ratified amendments of 2016 to the MLC, 2006

https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:11301:::NO:RP,11301:P11301_INSTRUMENT_AMENDMENT_ID,P11301_INSTRUME

NT_ID:3303970,312331

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 11 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

o 12 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

CDC is allowing crew members to disembark from cruise ships in U.S. 

waters and return home if cruise lines submit a signed attestation stating 

that they have complied with requirements to safely disembark their 

crew members. . . CDC shared information with all cruise lines in US waters 

on April 23, 2020, to help crew members return home safely. 5

44. The CDC’s position on repatriation was public knowledge shortly after the 

agency published the conditions on its website and providing them to national media. As 

was the basis for the cruise lines’ decision to delay repatriation as long as possible because 

of the associated costs to repatriate their replaceable crew members that did not fall in 

line with the company’s take it or leave it offer.

45. Knowing the consequences that would arise due to its unjustified wholesale 

breach of the CBA and violations of international and U.S. law, CELEBRITY maintained 

its unlawful conduct and rather than admit the error of its ways, concocted a narrative 

that claimed that the repatriations were being prevented by the CDC as if they actually 

believed the rouse would work.

46. Whether because it was oblivious or intentionally deceiving its crew, the 

fabricated narrative was soon exposed when the CDC revealed that ships in the US or 

within its territorial waters had been given the green-light to repatriate the crewmembers 

in their fleets so long as Defendant agreed to abide by precautionary compliance 

measures that were non-negotiable due to the history of the cruise lines in making big 

promises with little to show for it.

5 CDC Guidelines for Disembarkation of Crew published on April 23, 2020. 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/cruise-ship/cruise-shipmember-disembarkations.html

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 12 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

o 13 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

47. As recently as May 1st, on board ships in the Royal Caribbean fleet, within 

the same cruise conglomerate, audio records capture the corporate deception straight 

from the mouth of their vessel masters, including onboard the Oasis, Anthem and

Symphony of the Seas. After local media published a story which revealed the extent of the 

rouse, ship captains shamelessly denied the stories and instead, continued to fabricate 

tall tales. 

48. In fact, according to the Master of the Oasis of the Seas “’[i]n regards to what 

was in the Miami Herald the other day [about economics being the cause of the delay, 

not the CDC], well, that is one of those things that is not true at all,’ said the captain [ ] in 

an announcement Friday.” Similarly, according to the Master of the Symphony of the Seas 

“’[f]irst of all, I’d like to just address the Miami Herald article that came out yesterday,” 

said the captain on the Symphony of the Seas. He joked that the only way to comply with 

the CDC guidelines is for American crew to walk home, citing a requirement that crew 

not interact with the public on their journey home.’” 

49. Most damning of all though, was the commentary of the Master of the 

Anthem of the Seas who shamelessly lied to the crew and stated:

‘There was one article today we all read and we raised that question today 

in a conference call which says that CDC and cruise lines did not come with 

an agreement because it’s too expensive,’ said the captain on the Anthem 

of the Seas Friday. ‘That is absolute false. The money has nothing to do with 

it. It is absolutely not the money that we are concerned. The money is not 

the issue.’”6

6 Miami Herald article “Royal Caribbean false blames CDC for keeping crew trapped on 

its ships, agency says” dated May 1, 2020

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/tourism-cruises/article242443236.html

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 13 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

o 14 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

50. In reality though, subsequent statements of the company’s corporate 

officers show beyond a doubt that the company was intentionally lying to crew. Days 

after the May 1st report of the Masters’ fabrications and misrepresentations, RCCL CEO 

went on record and stated “he hopes the threat of criminal prosecution will be removed. 

. . ‘we have decided that the importance of getting [crew] home is so great that we will 

sign these documents as they are written today to help get you off the ships.’”7

51. Since those May 3rd promises were memorialized in print, over two weeks 

have come and gone, yet thousands of crew members remain captive on board the ships 

they previously served on, with no wages, and growing more desperate by the day.

52. There have been hunger strikes on the Navigator of the Seas “[a]t this 

7 Miami Herald article “ Royal Caribbean executives agree to the CDC’s terms for 

disembarking crew stuck on ships” dated May 3, 2020

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/tourism-cruises/article242471226.html 

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 14 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

o 15 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

moment, we feel that we’re all hostages,’ said one crew member, who asked not to be 

named for fear the company will retaliate and delay repatriation. ‘This company needs 

to understand we are not boxes of food that can be moved around.’”; heart wrenching 

cries for help and multiple suicides. 8

53. Without a doubt, we are witnessing a human rights tragedy of immense 

proportions unfold before our very eyes. But unlike in the past, Defendant CELEBRITY 

and its colleagues in the cruise ship cartel cannot hide behind the lawless open oceans 

where many of their misdeeds are typically swept away with the current. 

54. This time tough, CELEBRITY’s unscrupulous, discriminatory and illegal 

actions are not transpiring on the open ocean thousands of leagues from the nearest point 

of land. This time, the world is watching, the nation is watching, and a failure to act and 

fight for what is right will not go unnoticed. We are all witnesses.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

55. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs, the Class Representativesand Class Members 

herein, are and/or were crewmembers who worked for Defendant aboard Defendant’s 

vessels and who are Filipino nationals.

56. This action is brought by Plaintiffs MAGLANA and BUGAYONG on their

own behalf, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1-3) they seek to represent a worldwide 

class consisting of: 

8Miami Herald article “ Royal Caribbean crew go on hunger strike until company 

proves it is sending them home” dated May 8, 2020

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/tourism-cruises/article242595896.html

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 15 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

o 16 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

All other similarly situated Filipino crewmembers who worked aboard 

Defendant’s cruise vessels who remain captive aboard vessels in 

Defendant’s fleet, and are being subjected to the dangerous conditions 

outlined above in connection with Defendant’s callous and unreasonable 

failure to repatriate its crewmembers upon its unilateral decision to 

terminate their contracts and entitlement to wages.

57. Plaintiff reserves the right to seek to represent sub-classes of the world-wide 

class.

58. Numerosity--The exact number of members of the class is unknown at this time given that 

many members are currently in voluntary or forced isolation aboard Defendant’s vessels; 

however, at this time it is estimated that there are in excess of over 1700 members. The 

class is so numerous that joinder would be impracticable. Thus, this action satisfies the 

requirements of Rule 23(a)(1).

59. Commonality— There are common questions of law and fact that relate to 

and effect the rights of each member of the class and the relief sought is common to the 

entire class. The same misconduct on the part of Defendant, CELEBRTIY, caused the same 

or similar injury to each class member. All members of the class are or were 1) employees 

of the Defendant at all material times; 2) who are Filipino nationals 3) which were 

required to sign the same employment agreements that required their membership in the 

4) same union which Defendant purportedly collectively bargained with. All class 

members were entitled to the rights of wages or repatriation under US law, Maltese law, 

International law, and the CBA agreement. All class members seek damages and 

equitable relief in the form of a mandatory injunction as described in ¶¶ 1, 4, and 6 above

and accordingly, this action satisfies the requirement of Rule 23(a)(2).

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 16 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

o 17 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

60. Typicality-- The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class, in 

that the claims of all members of the class, including the named Plaintiff, depend upon a 

virtually identical showing of the acts and omissions of Defendant, CELEBRITY, giving 

rise to the right of Plaintiff to the relief sought herein. Defendant, CELEBRITY, was at all 

times material hereto engaged in the same conduct to the detriment of the entire class of 

Plaintiffs. Accordingly, this action satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a)(3).

61. Adequacy of Representation— Plaintiff is the representative party for the class, 

and is able to, and will, fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Plaintiffs

MAGLANA and BUGAYONG are adequate representatives of the class because: (1) they

are willing and able to represent the proposed class and have every incentive to pursue 

this action to a successful conclusion; (2) their interests are not in any way antagonistic to 

those of the other class members; and (3) are represented by counsel experienced in 

litigating claims under the General Maritime Law of the United States in addition to the 

statutory modifications and amendments enacted by Congress. Accordingly, this action 

satisfies the requirement of Rule 23(a)(4).

62. Propriety of Maintenance of Class Action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1). Class 

action status is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) because in light of the number 

of Filipino employees that are currently being held against their will by Defendant, 

adjudication of Plaintiffs prayers for a mandatory injunction would be dispositive of the 

their legal right to be repatriated in accordance with U.S. and International maritime law. 

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 17 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

o 18 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

63. Propriety of Maintenance of Class Action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Class action status is 

appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because CELEBRITY has acted and/or refused 

to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making final injunctive relief 

appropriate. Such generally applicable grounds consist of the repatriation of its shipboard 

employees to their country of residence, the Philippines, in accordance with U.S. and 

International Maritime law and wages for the time they served aboard the vessel. This 

relief would predominate over monetary relief.

64. Propriety of Maintenance of Class Action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). This 

action is properly maintained as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) inasmuch as questions 

of law and fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions 

affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to the other available 

methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. In support of the 

foregoing, Plaintiffs allege that common issues predominate and can be determined on a 

class-wide basis regarding Defendant, CELEBRITY’s violation of Plaintiffs rights to be

paid wages or repatriated after their contracts end due to Defendant’s unilateral decision 

to terminate their contracts. Moreover, the ships they served on became unseaworthy,

and in view of Defendant’s callous disregard for the wellbeing of the Plaintiffs who were

prevented from disembarking Defendant’s ships.

65. Moreover, as noted above in paragraphs 15-17, Plaintiffs have historically 

been considered to be a class of individuals that is so particularly vulnerable to abuse and 

exploitation that they were considered to be the wards the Federal Coruts. In our 

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 18 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

o 19 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

countries two centuries of legal jurisprudence, those classes of individuals that are 

labeled by the judiciary as on the lawless expanses of the open oceans that lack any real 

governmental oversight when beyond the jurisdictional limits of a nation’s territorial 

water

66. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this controversy because it is unlikely that individual plaintiffs would 

assume the burden and the cost of this complex litigation, and Plaintiff is not aware of 

any class members who are interested in individually controlling the prosecution of a 

separate action. The interests of justice will be served by resolving the common disputes 

of the class members with Defendant, CELEBRITY, in a single forum, and individual 

actions by class members, all of whom are citizens of the Philippines would be cost 

prohibitive. The class consists of a finite and identifiable number of individuals which 

will make the matter manageable as a class action.

67. Plaintiff anticipates Defendant will attempt to evade any type of governmental oversight 

or public scrutiny by exercising a forced arbitration provision in the CBA. However, 

Defendant’s complete failure to pay Plaintiffs wages for the time they were onboard its 

vessels or alternatively, repatriate them home is a material and complete breach of the 

essence of the CBA which governs the Plaintiffs employment with Defendant in exchange 

for their wages. Accordingly, Defendants lack a legal basis for compelling a contractual 

right which is part of a larger agreement that Defendant has materially breached. 

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 19 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

o 20 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

68. In addition, no arbitration provision in any of the Plaintiffs’ employment 

contracts and/or CBAs with CELEBRITY expressly call for arbitration of class action 

employment-related claims, nor contemplate claims for equitable relief and mandatory 

injunctions.

69. Aggrieved parties cannot be forced to submit class action disputes to 

arbitration unless there is a contractual basis for concluding that the aggrieved parties 

agreed to do so. Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 684-87 (2010) (“[A] 

party may not be compelled under the FAA to submit to class arbitration unless there is a 

contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed to do so . . . An implicit agreement 

to authorize class-action arbitration, however, is not a term that the arbitrator may infer 

solely from the fact of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate. . . class-action arbitration changes 

the nature of arbitration to such a degree that it cannot be presumed the parties consented 

to it by simply agreeing to submit their disputes to an arbitrator.”) (emphasis in original).

70. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Class Action lawsuit filed in this Court is proper. 

See id.

EXHASUTION OF ADMINSTRATIVE REMEDIES

71. As referenced above, Plaintiffs have not received the Right to Sue notice 

from the EEOC at this time because the agency has issued a moratorium on them until 

further notice when the virus’s impact on the ability to resume normal operations is better 

known. Plaintiff’s EEOC Charge Filing No. is 510-2020-03917

COUNT I

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 20 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

o 21 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

PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION REQUIRING REPATRIATION OF 

DEFENDANT’S FILIPPINO CREWMEMBERS 

[CLASS & INDIVIDUAL CLAIM]

72. PLAINTIFFS restate and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 

through 47 above as if fully set forth herein.

73. PLAINTIFFS and members of the class are employees of Defendant 

CELEBRITY within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq., and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. In 

the alternative, should the Court determine that PLAINTIFFS are precluded from seeking 

relief under Title VII, PLAINTIFFS submit that their class nonetheless satisfies the 

requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 regardless of Title VII as their class nonetheless 

comports with the prescriptions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(1-3).

74. CELEBRITY has adopted and/or maintained subjective employment 

practices, including but not limited to, subjective and disparate practices for complying 

with their legal obligations to repatriate employees that are not earning wages based 

exclusively on their national origins because, on information and belief, the larger the 

number of individuals from a specific national original, the higher the cost for Defendant 

to comply with its obligations under maritime law to repatriate its crew, and accordingly, 

continue to “schedule” repatriation trips on a nearly weekly basis, all of which have been 

“canceled” due to the fabricated narrative that the CDC is prohibiting repatriation. 

75. PLAINTIFFS will suffer irreparable harm if Defendant continues to 

perpetually delay its obligations under International maritime law (IMO procedures 

relating to the Maritime Labor Convention) and U.S. General Maritime law which the 

U.S. Coast Guard has determined to be consistent with U.S. General Maritime law and 

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 21 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

o 22 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

requires ships flying a U.S. flag to comply with “NVIC 02-13 uses a Statement of 

Voluntary Compliance (SOVC) and a Declaration of Voluntary Compliance to mirror the 

MLC and the DMLC of the MLC, 2006. The U.S. Coast Guard was extremely meticulous 

in following the letter of the MLC, 2006 for one principal reason: the ‘no more favourable 

(sic) treatment’ clause contained in Article V, paragraph 7 [of the Maritime Labor 

Convention of 2006]. See U.S. Coast Guard’s Circular dated January 6, 2017 implementing 

the MLC’s Repatriation requirements [D.E. 1-1].

76. Specifically, PLAINTIFFS have been, and continue to be, irreparably 

harmed by CELEBRITY’s failure to repatriate them which includes, but is not limited to:

a) mental anguish and emotional distress caused by the discriminatory 

treatment they have suffered on the basis of their national origins;

b) multiple suicides;

c) inability to provide for dependents, including children and parents;

d) continued potential exposure to the COVID-19 causing coronavirus which 

has infected well over five million people across the world and killed over 

300 thousand; and

e) inability to earn wages from an alternative source of employment in light 

of CELEBRITY’s decision to terminate their contracts.

77. PLAINTIFFS have no adequate remedy of law that would serve to 

immediately enjoin Defendants continued and unlawful violation of PLAINTIFFS’ basic 

human rights and their rights to earn wages or be repatriated to care for their loves ones 

and dependents.

78. PLAINTIFFS have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits on its 

claims for false imprisonment and discrimination under Title VII of the U.S. Code which 

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 22 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

o 23 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

provides for damages for emotional distress in addition to the damages that are 

customarily seen in actions for tort under the General Maritime law of the United States. 

79. The entry of a preliminary injunction will serve the public interest by 

effectuating the important policy concerns of Title VII preventing workplace 

discrimination on the basis of national origin, amongst others, in addition to reinforcing 

Defendant’s apparent inability or unwillingness to comprehend that no person or 

corporation is above the law.

80. PLAINTIFFS have a clear legal right to the relief sought herein. 

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS pray that:

1) The Court maintains this matter as a class action on behalf of the 

proposed worldwide class, that Plaintiffs be designated as 

representatives of the class and that their counsel of record be 

designated as Class Counsel; 

2) That the Court enter an injunction against Defendant CELEBRITY

Ordering it to repatriate its Filipino seafarers that are not actively 

being paid wages, and are being held against their will aboard ships 

in CELEBRITY’s fleet;

3) That the Court Order Defendant to submit an accounting to the 

Court of the wages since the CDC’s March 14, 2020 No-Sail Order for 

Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all similarly situated Filipino 

seafarers held and or still being held against their will by Defendant 

CELEBRITY onboard vessels in its fleet;

4) That judgement be entered in favor of Plaintiffs and the members of 

the class set forth herein, and against Defendant, for back pay 

(including interest or an appropriate inflation factor), front pay, 

benefits and all other amounts owed to Plaintiffs and the members of 

the class;

5) That the Plaintiffs be awarded costs, including but not limited to, 

attorneys’ fees, experts’ fees, and other costs and expenses of this 

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 23 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

o 24 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

litigation, and pray for such other relief in equity which this Court 

deems just and proper.

6) That the Court retain jurisdiction over Defendant until such time as 

it is satisfied that it has remedied the practices complained of and it 

determined to be in full compliance with the law.

COUNT II

INTENTIONAL TORT OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT

[CLASS & INDIVIDUAL CLAIM]

81. PLAINTIFFS restate and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 

through 47 above as if fully set forth herein.

82. At all times material Defendant CELEBRITY intentionally caused the 

Plaintiffs to be held captive against their will with no wages or ability to leave the ship 

due to Defendant’s election to ignore and violate their legal obligations under the laws of 

this country, International law and the Maritime Labor Convention of 2006 and its 

amendments.

83. The restraint of the Filipino seafarer PLAINTIFFS as a class, and 

PLAINTFFS MAGLANA and BUGAYONG as Class Representatives and/or 

individually, was done against PLAINTIFFS’ collective will through acts directly and in 

a natural and continuous sequence to produce or contribute substantially to producing 

the unjustified and intentional restraint of the class as a whole, so that it can be reasonably 

said that, but for those acts of CELEBRITY, the seemingly perpetual 

restraint/imprisonment would not have occurred, by confining the Plaintiffs to a 

perpetual confinement on its ships for reasons unknown to Plaintiffs but clearly in 

violation on US and International law.

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 24 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

o 25 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

84. As a result of the Defendant CELEBRITY's false imprisonment of the 

Plaintiffs, they were physically and emotionally injured about their bodies and 

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

disability, disfigurement, aggravation of any previously existing conditions 

therefrom, incurred medical expenses in the care and treatment of plaintiffs injuries, 

suffered physical handicap, lost wages and their working ability has been impaired in 

the future. 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 

plaintiffs vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

Wherefore, the plaintiffs demands judgment for all damages recoverable under 

the law against the Defendant CELEBRITY, including compensatory damages, costs, 

including attorneys’ fees and experts’ fees, punitive damages based on the intentional 

nature of CELEBRITY’s conduct to the maximum extent allowed under the law, and 

demands trial by jury, and for any other relief the Court dete4rmines reasonable and just.

COUNT III 

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF NATIONAL ORIGIN

[CLASS & INDIVIDUAL CLAIM]

85. PLAINTIFFS restate and reallege the allegations contained in above 

Paragraphs 1 through 47 of this Complaint as though set forth here in full.

86. Plaintiffs and members of the class are employees of CELEBRITY within 

the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq.

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 25 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

o 26 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

87. The discriminatory policies or practices of CELEBRITY, as set forth in this 

Complaint, have denied Plaintiffs and members of the class their right to equal 

employment opportunity in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq.

88. CELEBRITY has adopted and/or maintained a system-wide policy or 

practice of discrimination by, among other things, denying Plaintiffs and members of the 

class equal opportunities as described above.

89. CELEBRITY has adopted and/or maintained subjective employment 

practices, including but not limited to, subjective and disparate practices repatriating

employees based exclusively on their national origin. Through the apparent use of a 

“cost/benefit analysis” type approach of comparing potential costs of repatriation versus 

keep employees on board until the no-sail orders are lift later this year, to hell with their 

needs. 

90. The embodiment of the “profits over people” concept implemented by 

CELEBRITY to intentionally withhold its employees’ wages and simultaneously deprive 

them of their ability to return home and reunite with loved ones. 

91. Sadly, CELEBRITY determines the ability of their crew to return home and 

be freed from their illegal captivity is based entirely on their national origin.

92. This is clear evidence of their belief that they can act with impunity because 

of the legal gymnastics they play with their principal place of business and Headquarters. 

in Miami, claims of Liberian citizenship, and operating vessels that fly under the flag of 

Malta.

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 26 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

o 27 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

93. By reason of CELEBRITY's discriminatory policies or practices as set forth in 

this Complaint, Plaintiff and members of the class have suffered damages including, but not 

limited to, lost income, lost benefits, embarrassment, emotional distress, physical injury, 

humiliation, indignity and a reduced quality of life, since the discrimination began and into 

the future.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs demand judgment for all damages recoverable under 

the law against the Defendant CELEBRITY, including compensatory damages,

injunctive/equitable relief prayed for in Count II, their costs, including attorneys’ fees 

and experts’ fees, punitive damages based on the intentional nature of CELEBRITY’s 

conduct to the maximum extent allowed under the law, and for any other relief the Court 

determines reasonable and just.

COUNT IV

WAGES AND PENALTIES PURSUANT TO 46 U.S.C. § 10313 

[CLASS & INDIVIDUAL CLAIM]

94. Plaintiffs re-allege, incorporate by reference, and adopt paragraphs 1 47 

above as though originally alleged herein.

95. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs were employed as seamen in the 

service of the vessel.

96. While in the service of the ship, Plaintiffs performed all the work required 

of them, and carried out the orders given by their superiors.

97. Plaintiffs were discharged without any just or sufficient cause. At the time 

of Plaintiffs‘ discharge, the vessel was, and remains in, a port of the United States.

98. At the time of Plaintiffs discharge, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff all 

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 27 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

o 28 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

of their earned wages, including reimbursement of deductions previously made of

Plaintiffs’ wages. Defendant has sole custody and control of Plaintiffs wage 

records and personnel files. These documents are needed by Plaintiff to review to 

show exact dates and amounts with respect to earned wages owing to Plaintiff and 

deductions made from such earned wages and reflect the equitable accounting 

prayed for in Count I above.

99. At the time of Plaintiffs’ discharge, Plaintiff demanded all their wages, 

including reimbursement of deductions made from Plaintiff s earned wages.

100. Defendant refused to pay Plaintiffs all their earned wages or reimburse 

Plaintiffs for the deductions made there from, without sufficient cause.

101. Under 46 U.S.C.A. Section 10313, Plaintiff is entitled to his earned 

wages, deductions, and two days wages for each day payment is delayed.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands all damages entitled to by law, attorney's fees, 

prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and demands jury trial of all issues so 

triable.

COUNT V

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

[CLASS & INDIVIDUAL CLAIM]

102. Plaintiffs re-allege, incorporate by reference, and adopt paragraphs 1 through 47above 

as though originally alleged herein.

103. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs were held onboard the ship’s in 

Defendant CELEBRITY’s fleet unlawfully and without just cause, perpetually, without

wages or ability to escape their captors who were holding them under draconian rules 

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 28 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

o 29 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

designed to intimidate and discourage crew members from leaking information to the 

media and legal counsel from the confines of the ship. Not surprisingly, the company was 

concerned that it was hurting the company’s public image during a time where it was 

already sensitive to public attention to its involvement in facilitating the spread of the 

pandemic.

104. CELEBRITY’S conduct was intentional or reckless, that is, it intended its 

behavior when it knew or should have known that emotional distress would likely result.

105. The conduct was outrageous, that is, as to go beyond all bounds of decency, 

and to be regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community insofar as 

human beings are being treated more like cattle than people and being transferred from 

ship[ to ship, into perpetuity, while continually exposed to the pandemic. Accordingly, 

the emotional distress they are and have suffered was severe.

106. Plaintiffs have and will continue to suffer emotion distress and mental 

anguish as a result of Defendant’s intentionally callous conduct which was so severe as 

to cause Plaintiffs’ mental anguish.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs demand judgment for all damages recoverable under 

the law against the Defendant CELEBRITY, including compensatory damages,

injunctive/equitable relief prayed for in Count II, their costs, including attorneys’ fees 

and experts’ fees, punitive damages based on the intentional nature of CELEBRITY’s 

conduct to the maximum extent allowed under the law, and for any other relief the Court 

determines reasonable and just.

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 29 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

o 30 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

Respectfully submitted this on this 20

thday of June, 2020.

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 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 30 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

o 31 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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 20th, 2020 I electronically filed this document 

using the Court’s CM/ECF system, and the Service List below, which will automatically 

serve a copy on all counsel of record.

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 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 31 of 32
MAGLANA V. CELEBRITY CRUISE INC.

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

o 32 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

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)

By: /s/ Scott D. Ponce

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 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2020 Page 32 of 32