[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-13228

Non-argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-20822-UU

GRACITA CHANG,

Plaintiff–Appellant,

versus

CARNIVAL CORPORATION,

a Panama Corp. d.b.a. Carnival

Cruise Lines,

Defendant–Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(October 6, 2016)

Before HULL, MARCUS, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 14-13228 Date Filed: 10/06/2016 Page: 1 of 10 
2

This action involves a single maritime negligence claim. Plaintiff Gracita 

Chang alleged that she slipped and fell on Defendant Carnival Corporation’s cruise 

ship. More than a year after the incident, Plaintiff filed suit in federal court. 

Defendant moved for summary judgment based on the one-year limitation period 

for filing such suits set out in Plaintiff’s cruise ticket. Plaintiff acknowledged that 

she missed this deadline, but argues that this limitation period should be extended 

based on the doctrine of equitable tolling. The district court rejected this argument 

and agreed with Defendant that Plaintiff had untimely filed suit. The court entered 

judgment for Defendant. Plaintiff now appeals that order. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

For purposes of this appeal, the undisputed facts of this action are as follows. 

On December 9, 2012, while aboard Defendant’s cruise ship, Plaintiff slipped and 

fell. Plaintiff’s cruise ticket contains several restrictions governing Plaintiff’s right 

to sue Defendant. Most importantly, the ticket contains a time limitation within 

which to file suit and a forum-selection clause. The time-limitation provision 

disallows a suit filed more than one year after the date of the injury. The forumselection clause requires Plaintiff to file suit in federal court—and specifically in 

the Southern District of Florida—so long as there is subject matter jurisdiction in 

federal court over Plaintiff’s claim. Only if subject matter jurisdiction is lacking in 

Case: 14-13228 Date Filed: 10/06/2016 Page: 2 of 10 
3

federal court may Plaintiff file suit in state court, and then suit can be filed only in 

a court located in Miami-Dade County, Florida.1

 

Plaintiff retained a California attorney to litigate her slip-and-fall claim 

against Defendant. Aware of the impending litigation, Defendant twice informed 

Plaintiff’s attorney (both on September 4, 2013, and on October 22, 2013) that it 

would not waive its rights under the forum-selection clause.2

 Less than a month 

later, on November 20, 2013, Plaintiff substituted Florida counsel for her 

California counsel. Then, on December 4 or 6, 2013—just a few days before 

expiration of the one-year deadline—Plaintiff filed her slip-and-fall claim in a

Florida state court, not federal court, as she was required to do. 

On January 28, 2014, Defendant moved to dismiss the state-court action, 

asserting Plaintiff’s violation of the forum-selection clause. While this motion to 

dismiss was pending in state court, Plaintiff switched gears, and on March 4, 2014, 

 

1

 The ticket’s one-year limitation states, “Suit to recover on any [personal injury] claim shall not 

be maintainable unless filed within one year after the date of the injury . . . .” The ticket’s 

forum-selection clause states that any personal injury action must “be litigated, if at all, before 

the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami, or as to those 

lawsuits to which the Federal Courts of the United States lack subject matter jurisdiction, before 

a court located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, U.S.A. to the exclusion of the Courts of any 

other county, state or country.”

2

 Both communications stated:

All rights in equity, law, and those contained within the guest cruise ticket 

contract are expressly reserved, including the forum selection / venue provision 

requiring all passenger lawsuits against [Defendant] to be filed in the United 

States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami, Florida.

[Defendant] will not waive its contractual defense if a lawsuit is filed in the wrong 

court. (Emphasis added).

Case: 14-13228 Date Filed: 10/06/2016 Page: 3 of 10 
4

before the state court resolved Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff filed this parallel 

federal action. The federal action, however, was filed almost three months after 

the one-year limitations period had elapsed.

Defendant moved for summary judgment in federal court based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to file suit within the time limitation set out on the cruise ticket. 

Plaintiff agreed that the one-year limitation binds her, but argued that, by filing the 

state court action within a year of her injury, the limitation period had been 

equitably tolled. The district court concluded that Plaintiff had failed to justify any 

equitable tolling and therefore had run afoul of the limitation period. The court 

entered summary judgment for Defendant. Plaintiff appeals that ruling. 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff agrees that the one-year limitation binds her and that more than a

year elapsed between her injury and the filing of this action.3

 Nonetheless, 

Plaintiff argues that she should be deemed to have satisfied the one-year limitation 

because she filed suit in state court within a year and that filing equitably tolled the 

limitation. Defendant responds that Plaintiff’s filing of the state-court action failed 

to equitably toll the limitation because Plaintiff’s ticket contained a clause 

requiring the selection of a federal forum so long as there was federal jurisdiction;

 

3

 The one-year limitation arises from a contract, not a statute, but that makes no difference here. 

Bailey v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 774 F.2d 1577, 1579 n.3 (11th Cir. 1985) (“There is ‘no 

essential difference between contractu[]al and statutory limitations.’”).

Case: 14-13228 Date Filed: 10/06/2016 Page: 4 of 10 
5

there clearly was federal jurisdiction over the claim; and Defendant had made clear 

to Plaintiff that it would insist on her compliance with the forum-selection clause. 

We agree.4

As to Plaintiff’s effort to excuse her untimely filing by invoking equitable 

tolling, “[t]he Supreme Court has made clear that tolling is an extraordinary 

remedy which should be extended only sparingly.” Justice v. United States, 6 F.3d 

1474, 1479 (11th Cir. 1993). To be in a position to advance a tolling argument, 

due diligence is a necessary, though not sufficient, prerequisite that a plaintiff must 

satisfy. Id. Further, a late filing based on “garden-variety” negligence is not 

sufficient to warrant tolling. Id. at 1480. In addition, the interests of justice on 

which a tardy plaintiff relies do not support a plaintiff who has “not file[d] her 

action in a timely fashion despite knowing or being in a position reasonably to 

know that the limitations period is running.” Id. at 1479. Finally, it is the 

plaintiff’s burden to show that equitable tolling is warranted. Id.

 

4

 The parties agree that “the question of whether equitable tolling applies is a legal one subject 

to de novo review.” Booth v. Carnival Corp., 522 F.3d 1148, 1149 (11th Cir. 2008). Our 

opinions on the standard of review however, are inconsistent. See, e.g., Arce v. Garcia, 434 F.3d 

1254, 1260 (11th Cir. 2006) (reviewing the district court’s application of equitable tolling for an

abuse of discretion). However, our earliest opinions on the issue engaged in de novo review.

See, e.g., Bailey v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 774 F.2d 1577, 1578 (11th Cir. 1985). We must 

follow those opinions. Morrison v. Amway Corp., 323 F.3d 920, 929 (11th Cir. 2003) (“[W]hen 

circuit authority is in conflict, a panel should look to the line of authority containing the earliest 

case.”). In any event, a more deferential abuse-of-discretion standard would produce the same 

result in this appeal.

Case: 14-13228 Date Filed: 10/06/2016 Page: 5 of 10 
6

Notwithstanding the above, we have on, at least one occasion, found 

equitable tolling where a plaintiff subject to a forum-selection clause filed a federal 

suit late, having earlier filed, in the wrong forum, a timely state court action. In 

Booth v. Carnival Corporation, 522 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir. 2008), a cruise passenger 

who was subject to the same forum selection clause present here timely filed his 

negligence action in state court (sixteen days prior to expiration of the limitations 

period) before later filing an action in the federal court dictated by the forumselection clause; the federal action was filed past the one-year deadline. Id. at 

1149–50. 

The district court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Booth, 522 F.3d 

at 1149. We affirmed that court’s ruling, finding applicable equitable tolling on 

the particular facts before us. Id. at 1150–53. In doing so, we focused on a 

combination of four factors. First, the “state court . . . possessed subject matter 

jurisdiction concurrently with the federal courts.” Id. at 1153. Second, “the state 

suit was dismissed solely on grounds of improper venue.” Id. Third, the defendant 

was aware prior to expiration of the limitation period that the plaintiff intended to 

file suit. Id. Fourth, the plaintiff “was entitled to believe that his state filing might 

be sufficient given the fact that defendants can, and often do, waive their defense 

of improper venue.” Id. 

Case: 14-13228 Date Filed: 10/06/2016 Page: 6 of 10 
7

From all of the above, Booth concluded that the plaintiff had prosecuted his 

claim with the diligence necessary to warrant consideration of an equitable tolling 

claim and therefore the limitations period was properly tolled from the date on 

which he filed his state-court action. Id.at 1158. Although the parties seemingly 

agree that the first three factors identified above are present here, clearly the fourth 

factor is not. That is, prior to expiration of the limitations period, Defendant twice 

notified Plaintiff of its insistence that Plaintiff adhere to the forum-selection 

clause—that is, that Plaintiff file suit in the federal district court in the Southern 

District of Florida. Instead of complying with a provision of the contract that 

Defendant had explicitly and timely brought to Plaintiff’s attention, Plaintiff

instead chose to file her suit in the wrong forum. This was not the conduct of the 

plaintiff in Booth. And, unlike in Booth, Plaintiff here could have been under no 

misapprehension that Defendant would decline to hold her feet to the fire. 

Specifically, before the district court, Defendant submitted an affidavit from 

its Senior Claims Representative, who averred (1) that “[o]n September 4, 2013, 

[he] drafted and mailed” the first communication to Plaintiff’s California attorney 

and (2) that “[o]n October 22, 2013, [he] drafted, telefaxed and mailed” the second, 

similar communication to Plaintiff’s California attorney. Defendant attached to the 

affidavit both communications, which clearly explain that Defendant would not 

Case: 14-13228 Date Filed: 10/06/2016 Page: 7 of 10 
8

waive its forum-selection defense. There is no evidence that the letters were not 

mailed to the proper address. 

In response to the above evidence, Plaintiff provided nothing other than 

unsupported assertions suggesting the possibility that her California attorney might 

have failed to receive the communications or might have failed to advise Plaintiff 

or her Florida counsel of Defendant’s warning. But such assertions are not 

evidence. Travaglio v. Am. Exp. Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 1270 (11th Cir. 2013)

(“Statements by counsel in briefs are not evidence . . . .”).5

 Moreover, “the burden 

is on the plaintiff to show that equitable tolling is warranted.” Booth, 522 F.3d at

1150. With no evidence in opposition to that presented by Defendant, Plaintiff 

clearly failed to shoulder her burden. See Pines v. Warnaco, Inc., 706 F.2d 1173, 

1178 (11th Cir. 1983) (rejecting a plaintiff’s similar arguments6

); 10B Charles 

 

5

 Even those unsupported assertions fail to squarely state that Plaintiff’s California attorney did 

not timely relay Defendant’s communications. Nor is it clear that it would make a difference if 

Plaintiff had offered such evidence. See Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 92

(1990) (“Under our system of representative litigation, ‘each party . . . is considered to have 

notice of all facts, notice of which can be charged upon the attorney.’”).

6

 Pines held that a one-year limitation barred the plaintiff’s fraud claim because the plaintiff 

should have known of the underlying fraud more than a year before he sued. The Pines plaintiff 

had argued against summary judgment by asserting that the limitation should begin later. The 

Pines court rejected that contention.

Although [the plaintiff] argues that there was a factual dispute whether he should 

have discovered the fraud more than a year before filing suit, mere allegations

cannot defeat summary judgment. And [the plaintiff] can point to no evidence 

supporting his allegation that he was prevented from obtaining information [about 

the fraud].

706 F.2d at 1178 (citation omitted).

Case: 14-13228 Date Filed: 10/06/2016 Page: 8 of 10 
9

Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2734 (3d ed.

2015) (“[W]hen a summary-judgment motion is based on the running of the 

applicable statute of limitations and defendant shows that the prescribed period has 

elapsed, plaintiff may be able to defeat summary judgment by introducing facts, by 

affidavits or other evidence, raising a genuine issue whether the statute should be 

suspended. . . . But the motion should not be denied on the mere chance that there 

might be facts that would toll the statute.”).

Here, Plaintiff was specifically warned by Defendant that the latter intended 

to enforce the forum-selection clause, but Plaintiff chose to ignore that warning by 

filing suit in an incorrect forum, which decision directly led to the need to file suit

late in the correct forum. If, on these facts, a plaintiff could circumvent the forumselection clause, the forum-selection clause would lose much of its force, leading 

to the unnecessary expenditure of resources by courts and litigants. See Carnival 

Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 593–94 (1991) (“[A] clause establishing 

ex ante the forum for dispute resolution has the salutary effect of dispelling any 

confusion about where suits arising from the contract must be brought and 

defended, sparing litigants the time and expense of pretrial motions to determine 

the correct forum and conserving judicial resources that otherwise would be 

devoted to deciding those motions.”)

Case: 14-13228 Date Filed: 10/06/2016 Page: 9 of 10 
10

CONCLUSION

After having been warned by Defendant that it intended to enforce the 

forum-selection clause, Plaintiff nonetheless sued Defendant in the wrong forum. 

Plaintiff finally sued Defendant in the correct forum, but did so after expiration of 

the limitations period. We find that equitable tolling does not apply under these 

circumstances. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

Case: 14-13228 Date Filed: 10/06/2016 Page: 10 of 10