Page 1 of 4 

ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

CASE NO. 22-cv-22869-KMM

QI WEI CHEN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NORWEGIAN CRUISE

LINE HOLDINGS LTD., 

Defendant. 

______________________________/ 

PLAINTIFF’s NOTICE OF FILING SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF 

HIS RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff, QI WEI CHEN (“PLAINTIFF”), by and through undersigned counsel, and 

pursuant to Local Rule 7.8, hereby gives notice of supplemental authority, in support of her 

Response to Defendant NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE HOLDINGS LTD. (“DEFENDANT”)

Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 5]. The new authority relates to the arguments raised in 

DEFENDANT’s Motion to Dismiss that allege that PLAINTIFF failed to meet her burden under 

Rule 8 to plead sufficient factual allegations in support of notice (and which also address 

allegations made by DEFENDANT in Loredo that PLAINTIFF filed a shotgun pleading in that 

case). 

The citation to the supplemental authority is: Sarah Loredo v. Carnival Corporation & 

PLC, Case No. 22-23722-CIV-ALTONAGA/Damian [DE 20]. 

Loredo, involving similar allegations, states:

A. Shotgun Pleading

. . . 

Case 1:22-cv-22869-KMM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2023 Page 1 of 4
Page 2 of 4 

ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

The Court agrees with Plaintiff — she clearly connects material facts to her five 

distinct causes of action. Plaintiff alleges each of the dangerous conditions which 

caused the Staircase to be unsafe. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 17). She then alleges that 

“[e]ach of th[o]se dangerous conditions alone was sufficient to and did cause” her 

fall and injuries (id. ¶ 18 (alterations added)), and then details the many ways by 

which Defendant should have been put on notice (see id. ¶ 19). And she then finally 

links those allegations to each separate cause of action (see id. ¶¶ 40, 51, 62, 73–

78, 93–98), along with Defendant’s specific breaches of its duty of reasonable care 

(see id. ¶¶ 38, 49, 60, 72, 93). 

. . . 

C. Notice 

. . . 

Plaintiff provides sufficient facts to push her “claims across the line from 

conceivable to plausible[.]” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 (alteration added). Plaintiff 

alleges many different dangerous conditions (see Am. Compl. ¶ 17), “[e]ach of” 

which “alone was sufficient to and did cause” her injuries (id. ¶ 18 (alteration 

added)). Rather than providing “only conclusory allegations as to [actual or] 

constructive notice[,]” Holland, 50 F.4th at 1095 (alterations added), Plaintiff has 

provided multiple methods by which Defendant was on notice about the Staircase’s 

dangerous condition. 

Take, for instance, the “watch your step” sign affixed to the Staircase. (See Am. 

Compl. ¶ 19(a)). The presence of a “watch your step” sign on a Staircase can 

demonstrate that a cruise ship operator, like Defendant, was on notice about the 

potential risk of injury that stepping onto or down the Staircase might pose. See 

Guevara, 920 F.3d at 720–22. True, the sign is not a blanket panacea for Plaintiff’s 

claims; “there must . . . be a connection between the warning and danger.” Id. at 

721 (alteration added)). So, for example, the sign, with nothing further, has little to 

say about the Staircase’s allegedly “loose nosings[.]” (Am Compl. ¶ 17(c) 

(alteration added)). See Guevara, 920 F.3d at 721; Taiariol v. MSC Crociere S.A., 

677 F. App’x 599, 601–02 (11th Cir. 2017). But the nosing’s condition is not the 

only dangerous condition Plaintiff identifies. 

Plaintiff alleges a host of dangerous conditions, such as the Staircase being 

“unreasonably narrow[]” and “angled[,]” and that it “lacked adequate visual cues 

to help passengers see each step[.]” (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 17(a), (b), (f) (alterations 

added)). While a “watch your step” sign may have nothing to say about the status 

of the Staircase’s nosing, it certainly is intended to warn passengers like Plaintiff 

that the Staircase “could be deceiving, and therefore dangerous[.]” Guevara, 920 

F.3d at 722 (alteration added). And it is more than reasonable to infer that 

Defendant placed the sign because it knew the Staircase was deceiving and 

dangerous, see id., by virtue of its design and condition. See also Bailey v. Wheeler, 

843 F.3d 473, 480 (11th Cir. 2016) (explaining that courts “draw[] all reasonable 

inferences in a plaintiff’s favor” when evaluating a motion to dismiss (alteration 

added; citation omitted)).

Case 1:22-cv-22869-KMM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2023 Page 2 of 4
Page 3 of 4 

ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Relatedly, Plaintiff alleges that “relevant safety standards/recommendations/other 

guidelines” demonstrate that Defendant knew “or should have known” of the 

unreasonably dangerous nature of the Staircase. (Am. Compl. ¶ 19(d)). “[A]dvisory 

guidelines and recommendations, while not conclusive, are . . . probative of the 

defendant’s constructive knowledge of the allegedly hazardous condition.” 

Holderbaum v. Carnival Corp., 87 F. Supp. 3d 1345, 1356 (S.D. Fla. 2015) 

(alterations added; citation and quotation marks omitted). Even if those guidelines 

might not be sufficient alone to establish notice, when taken in tandem with 

Plaintiff’s other allegations concerning notice (see Am. Compl. ¶ 19), they 

build to the plausible inference that Defendant “knew or should have known” 

of the Staircase’s unreasonably dangerous condition. Guevara, 920 F.3d at 720 

(citation, footnote call number, and quotation marks omitted). 

And Plaintiff provides further support for Defendant’s notice with her 

allegations that Defendant both “owned” and “controlled” the Ecstasy (Am. 

Compl. ¶ 13), and “participated in the installation and/or design of the 

[Staircase], or alternatively, . . . accepted the [Staircase] with [the dangerous 

conditions] present after having been given an opportunity to inspect the ship” 

(id. ¶ 19(b) (alterations added)). See also Liles v. Carnival Corp. & PLC, No. 22-

cv-22977, 2023 WL 34644, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2023) (describing the 

“[c]ritical[]” difference between allegations that a dangerous condition was 

onboard the defendant’s ship and controlled by it, versus allegations 

concerning a dangerous condition not onboard and not under the defendant’s 

control (alterations added)); Hoover v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 491 F. Supp. 3d 

1254, 1257 (S.D. Fla. 2020). 

At this stage, these allegations provide enough to establish a plausible theory of 

Defendant’s liability. The “watch your step” sign (Am. Compl. ¶ 19(a)), drawing 

all reasonable inferences, supports the plausible theory that Defendant was aware 

of the unreasonably dangerous conditions of the Staircase (see id. ¶ 17), placed the 

sign as a warning, but then otherwise took insufficient steps to “adequately inspect[] 

. . . to make sure [the Staircase] [was] reasonably safe” (id. ¶ 37 (alterations added)), 

“adequately maintain” the Staircase’s safety (id. ¶ 48), “adequately remedy” the 

dangerous conditions, (id. ¶ 62), adequately “warn” of the dangerous conditions 

(id. ¶ 75), or otherwise adequately “design[], install[], and/or approve[]” a safer 

Staircase (id. ¶ 88 (alterations added)). See also Hunter v. Carnival Corp., No. 22-

20236-Civ, 2022 WL 2498757, at *7 (S.D. Fla. July 1, 2022) (noting it was 

“reasonable to infer” that cruise ship “knew (or should have known)” of the 

dangerous conditions it maintained and created by its own alleged actions). 

The existence of industry regulations, which Defendant either knew of and 

ignored, or should have known of (see Am. Compl. ¶ 19(d)), allows the same 

inference — and same plausible theory — that Defendant was on notice as to 

the dangerous conditions of the Staircase, see Holderbaum, 87 F. Supp. 3d at 

1356. And Defendant’s control over, and design of, the Staircase (see Am. 

Compl. ¶ 19(b)), further support the inference that Defendant was on notice, 

see Liles, 2023 WL 34644, at *3. 

Case 1:22-cv-22869-KMM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2023 Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4 

ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

In other words, Plaintiff has met her burden. Her claims “contain sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678 (citation and quotation marks omitted). 

[DE 13-1 at pp. 5-12] (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted). 

A copy of the Loredo opinion, as well as the complaint in that case, are attached as Exhibits 

“1” and “2” for the convenience of the Court. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Matthias M. Hayashi 

Spencer M. Aronfeld, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 905161

aronfeld@Aronfeld.com 

Matthias M. Hayashi, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 115973

mhayashi@aronfeld.com 

Abby Hernández Ivey, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 1002774

aivey@aronfeld.com 

ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

1 Alhambra Plaza, Penthouse 

Coral Gables, Florida 33134 

P: (305) 441.0440 

F: (305) 441.0198 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 24, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I ALSO CERTIFY that the foregoing 

document is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties via transmission of 

Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those 

counsel or parties who are not authorized to electronically receive Notices of Electronic Filing. 

 /s/ Matthias M. Hayashi 

Case 1:22-cv-22869-KMM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2023 Page 4 of 4