United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

William Christie, Plaintiff,

v.

Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. and 

others, Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 20-22439-Civ-Scola

Order On Objections to Magistrate Judge Order

On January 6, 2021, the Court referred the Plaintiff’s motion to strike 

certain affirmative defenses raised by Defendants AGA Service Company and 

Jefferson Insurance Company to United States Magistrate Judge Edwin G. 

Torres, for a report or to be heard and determined, consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1), Federal Rule 72, and Rule 1 of the Local Magistrate Judge Rules. 

This matter is now before the Court upon the Defendants’ objections to 

Magistrate Judge Torres’s order granting the Plaintiff’s motion to strike. The 

Court affirms the Magistrate Judge’s order.

Where a magistrate judge issues a non-dispositive order, the Court 

reviews that order under a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 72(a); see Moore v. M/V Sunny USA, No. 18-81181-Civ, 2019 WL 

7207109, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2019) (Altman, J.). A number of courts have 

said that a ruling can be shown to be clearly erroneous only when it can be 

concluded that the challenged decision is not “just maybe or probably wrong; it 

must strike us with the force of a five-week-old, unrefrigerated dead fish.” 

TFWS, Inc. v. Franchot, 572 F.3d 186, 194 (4th Cir. 2009). Put another way, a 

finding is clearly erroneous, when “although there is evidence to support it, the 

reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm 

conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Holton v. City of Thomasville 

Sch. Dist., 425 F.3d 1325, 1351-52 (11th Cir. 2005). An order is contrary to the 

law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of 

procedure. Barr v. One Touch Direct, LLC, No. 8:15-cv-2391, 2017 WL 749503, 

at *2 (M.D. Fla. 2017).

The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s order, the parties’ 

briefing, and the relevant legal authorities and finds Magistrate Judge Torres’s 

order to be well-reasoned and cogent and compelling. The crux of the 

Defendants’ objection is that it was clear error and contrary to the law for 

Magistrate Judge Torres to strike certain of their affirmative defenses on the 

basis of the Magistrate Judge’s finding that “general maritime law applied to 

Case 1:20-cv-22439-RNS Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2021 Page 1 of 2
the plaintiff’s tort claims . . . and that the ‘Florida comparative fault rule 

cannot apply and by extension that includes Fabre affirmative defenses.’” (ECF 

No. 51, at 1-2.) 

As Magistrate Judge Torres noted in his order, where admiralty 

jurisdiction exists, a court may, but is not always compelled to apply general 

maritime law to the entire case. (ECF No. 44, at 9-11.) For instance, a court

may choose not to apply maritime law “where ‘neither statutory nor judicially 

created maritime principles provide an answer to a specific legal question” such 

that “courts may apply state law provided that the application of state law does 

not frustrate national interests in having uniformity in maritime law.’” (ECF No. 

44, at 11 (quoting Coastal Fuels Mktg., Inc. v. Fla. Express Shipping Co., 207 

F.3d 1247, 1251 (11th Cir. 2020). Here, the Court has found the Defendants 

committed a tort independent from the parties’ contract under the undertaker’s 

doctrine and as Judge Torres noted, where an injury occurs on navigable 

waters, maritime law applies to the substantive issues in the case. (ECF No. 

44, at 13 (discussing Everett v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 913 F.2d 1355, 1358 

(11th Cir. 1990)). As maritime law applies to the Defendant’s tort, and the 

Court may otherwise apply maritime law to this action because maritime law 

applies with respect to the Plaintiff’s claims against Royal Caribbean, the Court 

finds it was not clear error or contrary to the law for Magistrate Judge Torres to 

grant the Plaintiff’s motion and strike certain of the Defendants’ affirmative 

defenses on the basis that maritime law does not recognize the Florida 

comparative fault rule and by extension the concept of a Fabre defense.

For the reasons set forth above, Magistrate Judge Torres’s ruling is 

affirmed. The Defendants’ objections are overruled. (ECF No. 51.)

Done and ordered at Miami, Florida, on February 18, 2021.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-22439-RNS Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2021 Page 2 of 2