IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICTOF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

GARY LOBATON, individually and on Behalf )

of All Others Similarly Situated, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case No.:

vs. )

)

CARNIVAL CORPORATION, a Corporation of )

the Republic of Panama; CARNIVAL PLC, a )

Corporation of The United Kingdom; COSTA )

CROCIERE, S.p.A, a Corporation of the )

Republic of Italy , and JOHN DOES 1-10, ) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

)

) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Defendants. )

____________________________________ )

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, GARY LOBATON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

(hereinafter collectively “Plaintiffs”), by and thru his attorney RIBBECK LAWCHARTERED, 

makes the allegations in this Class Action against Defendants, CARNIVAL CORPORATION, a 

Corporation of the Republic of Panama; CARNIVAL PLC, a Corporation of The United 

Kingdom; COSTA CROCIERE, S.p.A, a Corporation of the Republic of Italy, and JOHN 

DOES 1-10, (hereinafter collectively “Carnival” or “Defendants”).

SUMMARY OF CLAIMS

1. This is a class action seeking relief for violation of the Athens Convention 

Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, breach of contract, negligence, 

Case: 1:12-cv-00598 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/26/12 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:1
unjust enrichment and punitive damages for registered passengers, unregistered passengers and 

crew members who were on board of the cruise ship Costa Concordia of the coast of Italy, on or 

about January 13, 2012, who purchased a ticket or entered into an employment contract with the 

Defendants and who suffered damages as the result of the unsafe conditions exposed to by the 

negligent and/or intentional conduct of the Defendants. 

2. Despite knowledge of the obvious damage to the Costa Concordia on January 13, 

2012, the Defendants failed to properly and timely notify all Plaintiffs on board of the deadly and 

dangerous condition of the cruise ship as to avoid injury and death.

3. On January 13, 2012, despite of the dangerous conditions aboard the cruise ship, 

Plaintiffs were abandoned by the Captain of the Costa Concordia.

4. To date 16 bodies have been recovered and 16 more remain missing. There were 

more than 4,200 people aboard the Costa Concordia at all times relevant to this complaint.

5. This action is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs who were on board of the Costa 

Concordia on January 13, 2012 who purchased a ticket or entered into an employment agreement 

with Defendants who suffered damages as a result of Defendants’ conduct.

THE PARTIES

6. Plaintiff, GARY LOBATON, was a crew member on board of the Costa 

Concordia who, at all times relevant to the complaint, resided in Lima, Peru. 

Case: 1:12-cv-00598 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/26/12 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:2
7. Plaintiff did not learn of the dangerous conditions of the cruise ship until it was 

too late for them to abandon ship on a safe and reasonable manner as to avoid causing Plaintiffs 

intentional infliction of emotional distress, injury and/or death.

8. As a consequence of Defendants’ unlawful and unsafe conduct, Plaintiffs have

suffered injuries and have otherwise been damaged as a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts.

9. Plaintiff appears in this action on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated.

10. Defendant, CARNIVAL CORPORATION, is a Corporation of the Republic of 

Panama; Defendant, CARNIVAL PLC, is a Corporation of The United Kingdom; COSTA 

CROCIERE, S.p.A, is a Corporation of the Republic of Italy. and JOHN DOES 1-10, 

(hereinafter collectively “Defendants"). Upon information and belief, Defendants are and were

responsible for all of the events that lead to the injury and/or death of Plaintiffs. 

11. Various others, presently unknown to Plaintiffs, participated as co-conspirators of

the Defendants in violations of law alleged in this Complaint, and have engaged in conduct and 

made statements in furtherance thereof. The acts charged in this Complaint have been performed 

by Defendants and their co-conspirators, or were authorized, ordered or done by their respective 

officers, agents, employees or representatives, while actively engaged in the management of each 

Defendants’ business or affairs. These others shall be referred to herein as the “John Doe 

Defendants.”

Case: 1:12-cv-00598 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/26/12 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:3
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332(d)(2) of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), because Plaintiff brings this 

action as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff, GARY 

LOBATON, is a citizen of a different state than Defendants, and the aggregate amount in 

controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. This Court also has subject 

matter jurisdiction because this matter presents a federal question.

13. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Plaintiff because Plaintiff submits to the 

Court’s jurisdiction. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because they 

conduct substantial business in the State of Illinois, have sufficient minimum contacts with the 

State, and otherwise avail themselves of the markets in this State, through promotion, sale, 

marketing, and distribution of their products and services in this State, so as to render the 

exercise of jurisdiction by this Court permissible under traditional notions of fair play and 

substantial justice. The State of Illinois has a substantial and paramount interest in preventing the 

practices alleged herein from occurring.

14. Venue properly lies in this district because Defendants, as corporations, are 

“deemed to reside in any judicial district in which [defendants are] subject to personal 

jurisdiction;” and because Defendants conduct substantial business in this judicial district.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Case: 1:12-cv-00598 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/26/12 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:4
15. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, per its website, is the largest vacation company in 

the world. Its portfolio of leading cruise bands includes Carnival Cruise Lines, Holland America 

Line, Princess Cruises and Seabourn in North America.

16. Defendants attract more than 8.5 million guests annually.

17. Carnival Corporation & plc is the parent company of Costa Cruises and its 

subsidiary, Costa Crociere S.p.A.. 

18. On January 13, 2012, Costa Cruises' vessel, the Costa Concordia, departed from 

Civitavecchia, Italy with approximately 3,200 passengers and 1,000 crew members on a sevenday voyage.

19. Costa Concordia was sailing on a Mediterranean cruise from Civitavecchia with 

scheduled calls at Savona, Italy; Marseille, France; Barcelona, Spain; Palma de Mallorca; 

Cagliari and Palermo, Italy.

20. At approximately 10:00pm CET, Costa Concordia struck a rock off the coast of 

Isola del Giglio, tearing a gash in its hull which let water pour into the engine rooms causing 

significant damage to the vessel which caused it to capsize.

21. Costa Concordia's Captain, Francesco Schettino, delayed the order to abandon 

ship and deploy the lifeboats.

Case: 1:12-cv-00598 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/26/12 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:5
22. Captain Schettino, instead of being the last man to leave the vessel and using all 

reasonable efforts to assure that all passengers and crew members are evacuated to safety, 

breached his duty as the master of his vessel, and abandoned his ship in the first available 

opportunity he had.

23. Based on a recording of a telephone conversation between the captain and the port 

authority, Captain Schettino was ordered by the coastguard to return to the stricken vessel after 

he claimed that the evacuation was almost complete when it had scarcely begun.

24. According to reports, Captain Schettino's decision to sail close to Isola del Giglio

was attributed by the captain to Defendants' management in putting him under intense pressure 

to sail the cruise ship close to the island in order to present a spectacle to Costa Concordia's 

passengers. 

25. During a telephone conversation with his friend in the hours after he was arrested, 

Captain Schettino said: "Management was always saying 'pass by there, pass by there.' Someone 

else in my position might not have been so amenable to pass so close but they busted my balls, 

pass by there, pass by there, and now I'm paying for it." 

26. Captain Schettino attributed his action to the cruise company encouraging the 

practice of sailing close to the island because it was good "publicity" and went down well with 

passengers in the increasingly competitive cruise ship business. 

Case: 1:12-cv-00598 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/26/12 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:6
27. Due to Captain Schettino's cowardly and reckless action and Defendants' 

negligent practice, 16 people are dead and 16 more remain missing and over 4,000 people have 

suffered damages and continue to suffer damages.

28. As a result of Defendants’ conduct (including their acts of concealment), 

Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer damages.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

29. Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and a Class consisting of:

(a) All persons who were registered or unregistered and purchased 

a ticket to be aboard the Costa Concordia at all times relevant 

to this complaint. 

(b) All persons who were employed as crew members and were 

aboard the Costa Concordia at all times relevant to this 

complaint.

30. Specifically excluded from the Class are Defendants, any entities in which 

Defendants have a controlling interest, and the officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, 

successors, subsidiaries and/or assigns of Defendants and any Judge assigned to this action, and 

her or his immediate family. Plaintiff reserves the right to modify the Class definition as 

discovery and/or further investigation so warrant.

31. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action as 

Plaintiff and the Class satisfy all requirements for maintaining a class action.

Case: 1:12-cv-00598 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/26/12 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:7
32. The number of members in the Class is so numerous as to render joinder 

impracticable. Upon information and belief, there are approximately more than 4,200 people 

who were aboard the Costa Concordia on January 13, 2012. As such, there is, at a minimum, 

4,200 members of the Class. Upon information and belief, the precise size (and identity and 

contact information) of the Class can be readily determined from documents and records 

maintained by the Defendants.

33. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class that predominate over 

any individual issues, including:

(a) Whether Defendants deviated from international safety 

standards when operating the cruise ship;

(b) Whether Defendants violated the Athens Convention Relating 

to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea and/or 

any laws under any applicable international conventions;

(c) Whether Defendants’ acted negligently at the time of the 

incident on January 13, 2012;

(d) Whether Defendants’ conduct constituted a breach of contract;

(e) Whether Plaintiffs and members of the Class have all suffered 

injury or otherwise been damaged as a result of Defendants’

wrongful conduct described below:

(i) whether Defendants had knowledge of the dangerous 

condition of the cruise ship; 

(ii) whether Defendants concealed the dangerous condition of 

the cruise ship to passengers and crew at the time they had 

notice of the incident; and

(iii) whether Defendants misrepresented the existence of safety 

at the time of the incident.

Case: 1:12-cv-00598 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/26/12 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:8
(f) Whether Plaintiff and members of the Class have suffered 

injury in otherwise been damaged as a result of Defendants’ 

conduct;

(g) Whether Defendants acted negligently;

(h) Whether Defendants breached the contract with passengers and 

crew;

(i) Whether any limits of liability should apply to this case;

(j) Whether Defendants’ have been unjustly enriched by their

conduct; and

(k) Whether the Plaintiff and the Class members are entitled to 

punitive or exemplary damages and, if so, the nature of such 

damages.

34. Plaintiff's claim is typical of the claims of the proposed Class, and Plaintiff will 

fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the proposed Class. Plaintiff does not 

have any interests antagonistic to those of the Class. Plaintiff has retained competent counsel 

experienced in the prosecution of this type of litigation. The questions of law and fact common 

to the Class members, some of which are set out above, predominate over any questions 

affecting only individual Class members.

35. Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to all Class members, 

thereby making final equitable relief with respect to the Class as a whole appropriate with 

respect to the Defendants.

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

adjudication of this lawsuit, because the expense and burden of individual litigation would make 

it difficult or impossible for individual members of the Class to redress the wrongs done to them. 

Case: 1:12-cv-00598 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/26/12 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:9
The likelihood of individual Class members prosecuting their own separate claims is remote, 

and, even if every Class member could afford individual litigation, the court system would be 

unduly burdened by individual litigation of such cases. Individualized litigation would also 

present the potential for varying, inconsistent, or contradictory judgments and would magnify the 

delay and expense to all of the parties and to the court system because of multiple trials of the 

same factual and legal issues. Plaintiff knows of no difficulty to be encountered in the 

management of this action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action.

COUNT I

Violation of the Athens Convention Relating to the Carriage 

of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea

37. Plaintiff hereby incorporates and adopts by reference each and every allegation 

set forth in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

38. Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of himself and all others aboard the Costa 

Concordia on January 13, 2012.

39. Defendants failure to implement safety procedures and its acts of negligence such 

as failing to perform the safety drill, policy failures that allowed a captain to abandon ship before 

the passengers, and lack or failure of a warning system to notify the crew that they were off 

course, were negligent acts that knowingly put the Plaintiff in peril of his life.

40. Defendant acted intentionally or recklessly with knowledge that damage would 

probably result to Plaintiff.

Case: 1:12-cv-00598 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/26/12 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:10
41. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligent conduct, the Plaintiff 

suffered and continues to suffer damages. Defendants acted intentionally and hence no limits of 

liability should be applied in this case.

COUNT II

 Breach of Contract

42. Plaintiff hereby incorporates and adopts by reference each and every allegation 

set forth in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

43. Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of himself and all others aboard the Costa 

Concordia on January 13, 2012.

44. Defendants offer to sell tickets to Plaintiffs claiming to be a safe cruise liner and 

offering to take them from Civitavecchia. Plaintiffs accepted Defendants’ offer and purchase

tickets relying on Defendants express warranty that a trip aboard Defendants’ ship was safe and 

that were going to be taken on a safe manner from Civitavecchia. In addition, Defendants offer 

jobs aboard the cruise ship claiming to be a safe cruise liner. Plaintiffs accepted offers of 

employment from the Defendants based on their safety claims.

45. Defendants breached the contract by not providing a safe trip aboard the Costa 

Concordia and by failing to arrive safely at its final destination.

46. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach, the Plaintiffs suffered and 

continue to suffer damages. 

Case: 1:12-cv-00598 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/26/12 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:11
47. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiff and the Class 

have been damaged.

48. Plaintiffs sustained substantial and ascertainable losses of money and/or property 

and other damages, in an amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT III

Negligence

49. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate and adopt by reference each and every allegation set 

forth in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

50. Defendants had a duty to Plaintiffs to operate the cruise ship in a safe manner as 

to avoid causing injury to Plaintiffs. Defendants particularly had a duty to evacuate Plaintiffs on 

a timely and safe manner as to avoid emotional distress, injury and death to Plaintiffs. In 

addition, Defendants had a duty to inform Plaintiffs of the dangerous conditions existent in the 

cruise ship at all times relevant to this complaint. Defendants had a duty to adequately test its 

warning systems as to avoid dangerous conditions leading to the emotional distress, injury and 

death of Plaintiffs. Defendants were on notice of the existent danger and failed to evacuate 

Plaintiffs upon impact as to avoid emotional distress, injury and death to Plaintiffs. Moreover, 

Defendants had a duty to provide true and accurate information to the Plaintiffs to prevent undue 

risks arising from the foreseeable acts of Defendants. Defendants had the duty to maintain the

Captain aboard the cruise ship as provided by existent laws.

Case: 1:12-cv-00598 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/26/12 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:12
51. Defendants were negligent, and breached the duty owed to the Plaintiff and the 

Class.

52. As direct and proximate causes of the breach, Plaintiff and Class members have

been damaged and continue to suffer damages.

COUNT IV

Unjust Enrichment

53. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate and adopt by reference each and every allegation set 

forth in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 

54. Plaintiffs conferred a tangible economic benefit upon Defendants by purchasing

tickets for the cruise, and by providing services aboard the cruise ship. 

55. Failing to require Defendants to provide remuneration under these circumstances 

would result in them being unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiffs.

56. Defendants were and continue to be unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiffs

and Defendants’ retention of the benefit conferred upon them by Plaintiffs would be unjust and 

inequitable.

COUNT V

Punitive Conduct

57. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate and adopt by reference each and every allegation set 

forth in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 

Case: 1:12-cv-00598 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/26/12 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:13
58. Defendants’ conduct was knowing, intentional, with malice, demonstrated a 

complete lack of care and was in reckless disregard for the rights of the Plaintiffs. Defendants’ 

conduct has been outrageous and outside the bounds of decency. Defendants should be punished 

due their conduct of putting others at risk of serious injury and death in order to make more 

profit. Plaintiffs hereby request an award of punitive damages to appropriately punish 

Defendants for their extreme misconduct.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and members of the Class, respectfully 

requests that this Court:

A. determine that the claims alleged herein may be maintained as a class action 

and issue an order certifying the Class as defined above;

B. appoint Plaintiff as the representatives of the Class and his counsel as Class 

counsel;

C. award all actual, general, special, incidental, statutory, punitive, treble and 

consequential damages to which Plaintiff and Class members are entitled;

D. award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on such monetary relief;

E. award reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses; and

F. grant such further relief that this Court deems appropriate.

Case: 1:12-cv-00598 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/26/12 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:14
JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.

Dated: January 26, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

RIBBECK LAW CHARTERED

By: /s/Monica R. Kelly

 Attorney for Plaintiff

Manuel von Ribbeck, Esq.

Monica R. Kelly, Esq.

RIBBECK LAW CHARTERERD

505 N. Lake Shore Drive

Lake Point Tower

Chicago, Illinois, 60611

Phone (312) 822-9999

E-mail: monicakelly@ribbecklaw.com

mervinmateo@ribbecklaw.com

Firm I.D. No. 42698

Case: 1:12-cv-00598 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/26/12 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:15