FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT FEB RUARY 14 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1390 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 05-20577 -CV -CMA JAN E D OE (A .H .) , Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us CARNIVAL CORP., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (F eb ru ar y 14 , 200 6) Be fo re T JO FL A T , A

N D E RS O N a nd C A RN E S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Jane D oe appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of Carn iva l C or

por at ion ’ s m oti on fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t . On ap p ea l , t h e o n l y i s s u e i s wh et h ero r n o tAp p el l an t ’s2

co m pl ai nt was t im e-b arre d. Appellant alleges that she wa s sexually assaulted by

a Carnival em

ploy ee when she took a cruise as a seventeen y ear- old. Car nival presented evidence that it se nds ea chti ck et

hol de r a co ntr ac t up on p ur ch as e tha t c ont ai ns a li m itatio ns pe rio d fo r th e fi li ng of s ui ts ba se d o n p ers on al in juri es su st ai ne d abo ardth e sh ip
. T he li m itatio ns p er iod

on Appe llant’ s ti ck et

w as f or one y ear fr om

the ti m e she sustain ed the injury
. Carnival’ s m odified lim itations period com plied with federa l adm ir al ty law , w hic h pr ovi de s th at the thr ee -y ear lim itatio ns p er iod c anbe
co nt ract ua ll y

sh or te ne d t o n o s ho rte r th an a y ear. Se e 4 6 U.S.C. Ap p. § 18 3b (a). In turn, this provisio n is lim ited by § 183b (c): If ape rs on w ho i s e nti tle d to r ec ove r on any suc h c la im

is m en ta lly inc om pe te nt o r a m ino r, or

if the a ct ionis one f

or w ro ngf ul d eath, a ny law fu l l im itatio n of

ti m e pr es cr ibe d insuc h c ontra ct sha ll not be ap pli ca ble so l ong as no l eg al r ep re se nta tiv e ha s be enappoi nte d f or suc h in co m

pe te nt, m ino r, or

de ce de nt' s e state , but

sha ll be appl ic ab le from the date of the appointm ent of such legal representative: Provided, however , T hat such appo intm ent be m ade w ithin three ye a r s a f t e r th e d a t e o f

s u c h d e a t h o r

i n ju ry. 46 U.S.C. App . § 1 83 b( c) (e m ph as is in ori gi na l). Appellant filed the instant action m ore than one y ear from the date of her inj ur y ; and, m or e sig nif

ic an tly , m or e than on e y ear fr om the da te of

he r ei ght ee nth birthday , when she reached the age of m aj ority
. Appellant does not argue that she,3

or som eo ne a ct ing on h er

be ha lf , la ck ed not ic e of the one -y ear statut e of lim itatio ns e m

bodi ed in the ti ck et . R athe r, she a rg ue s th at the c ontra ct

is not ef fe ct ive to bin d he r, be ca

use she w as am ino r at

the ti m e of

e xe cu tio n of

the contract and at the tim e of her injury
. She ar gues that §1 83b(c) is a partial
co dif ic at ionof the c om m on l aw , w hic h hi sto ri ca lly did not e nf or ce c ontra ct s ag ai nst m ino rs . I n e ff

ec t, she a rg ue s th at

§18 3b( c) is not

atol lin g pr ovi sio n, but rather sim

ply renders the contrac tual statute of lim itations inoperative, there fore le av ing the thr ee -y ear fe de ra l a dm ir al ty lawstatut e of

li m itatio ns a s th e ope rativ e pr ov is io n. W e re j ec t a ppe llant’ s c onstru ct ionof the statut e. W e loo k to the pla in langua ge of

the statut e. W e co nc lud e tha t i t c le ar ly doe s no t i nc or

por at e the
co m m on l awvie wthat r ef

use d to r ec ogni ze ac ontra ct w ithape rs on w ho w as a
m inor at the tim e of exec ution
. Contrary to the com

m on law, it is clear that §183 b( c) doe s r ec ogni ze the va lid ity of suc h a c ontra ct w itham ino r: it

e xpr es sly
re co gni ze s th e ap pli ca

bil ity of the statut e of

li m itatio ns e m

bodi ed in suc h a
co ntr ac t f ro m a nd a ft er the ti m e tha t a

le ga l r ep re se nta tiv e is a

ppoi nte d f

or the
m ino r. T hus, it

is cl ear tha t §1 83b( c) doe s no t a br oga te the c ontra ct

ua lly shor te ne d st at ute of li m itatio ns, a s ur ge d by

appe llant, but

r athe r sim

ply tol ls i ts op erat io n u nt il th e ap po in tm en t o f th e g ua rd ia n.Appellant’s r equest for oral a rgument is denied. 1 4 Having concluded that §1 83b(c) is a tolling p rovisio n, w e also conclude that i tme r e l y t o l l s t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e s h o rt e n e ds t a tu t e o f

l i mi t a t i o n s d

u r i n g t h e t i me tha t the party

is a m ino r. T his c onstru ct ionof the statut e is b ols te re d by the use of the pr es en t t en se in the statut e: “ If ape rs on . . . is
. . . am ino r . . . a ny law fu l lim itation o f tim e prescr ibed in su ch contract shall not be applicable . .
. .” (e m pha sis a dde d)
. T hus, w e co nc lud e tha t §1 83b( c) tol le d th e ope ratio n of the
co ntr ac tua lly

sho rt en ed

statut e of li m itatio ns unti l a

ppe llant r ea ch ed

the a ge of
m aj or ity
. B ec au se appe llant w ai te d m or e than ay ear fr om that date , w e co nc lud e tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt c or

re ct ly he ld tha t the ins tant s uit

is barr ed by the statut e of li m it at io ns . A cc or din gly , the de ci sio n of the dis tr ic t c ourt i s a ff

ir m ed
. 1 AFFIRMED.