[PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 84 0

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cv -2 31 85 -DLG THE ESTA TE OF TORE MYHRA, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us ROYAL CARIBB EAN CRUISES, LTD., a Lib eri anCo rp or at io n, a f or ei gn co rp or at io n d .b.a., Ro y al Cari bb ean Int ern at io na l, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 21 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, PRYOR an d R IPPLE, Cir cu itJu dg es . * RIPP LE, Circu itJu dg e:
Honora ble Kenne th F. Ripple, United States Circuit J udg e for the Seventh Circuit, * sitti ngby designation. Case: 10-15840 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 1 of 29Inth e fal l o f 20 09 , Tore M yhr a an d h is fam il y va cat io ne d o n acru is e sh ip op erat edby Roy al Cari bb ean Cru is es , Ltd . Duri ng hi s v oyage, M r. Myhr a fel l i ll , an d h e d ie d s om et im e la te r. His Est at e in st itut edth is act io n a ga in stRo y al Cari bb ean , see ki ng dam ag es for hi s i nju rie s an d d eath. Itall eg edth ata ba ct eri al in fect io n t ha t h e h adacqui redwhi le on bo ardRo y al Cari bb ean ’s ves se l h ad cau se d t he se tra gi c ev en ts . Royal Car ib be anm ov edto di sm is s t he act io n fo r im pr op er v enue un de r Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 2( b) (3 ); i t re li edup on a fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e am on g t he co nd it io ns inMr. Myhra’s p as sa ge co nt ract . Tha t cl au se requi redth atall pe rs on al in jury clai m s b e li ti ga te d i n t he co urts of Eng landan d Wales an d b e g ov ern edby E ng li sh law. At a ll ti m es rel ev an t t o t hi s li ti ga ti on , th e Uni te d Ki ng do m was apa rty to the Co nv en ti on Rel at in g t o t he Carr ia ge of P as se ng ers an d Th ei r Lug ga ge by Sea (th e “ Ath en s C on ve nt io n” or t he

“ Co nv en ti on ”). The di stric t co urt ag reedwith R oyal Car ib be anan d d is m is se d the cas e. 1

In violation of Fe dera l Rule of Appellate Proc edure 28(a) (4)( A) a nd Eleventh Circuit 1 Rule 28-1(g ), the pa

rties’ brie fs in this court do not specify the basis for the district court’s jurisdiction. Never

theless, “[a]n appellate f

eder al cour

t must satis fy

itself not only

of its own jurisdiction, but also of that of the lower courts in a c ause unde r re view.” Mitche ll v. Maurer , 293 U.S. 237, 244, 55 S. C t. 162, 165 (1934). Our own re view of the rec ord make s clea r that the requisites for

diversity jurisdiction are sa

tisfied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Acc ordingto the complaint, the My

hras a re c itiz ens of Eng land, and Royal Caribbea n is a L iberian Corpor ation with a principa l place of

business in Miami-Dade County , Florida . The c omplaint alleg es damag es in excess of $75,000. The complaint also contains alleg ations that establish admiralty (continued...) 2 Case: 10-15840 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 2 of 29The Est at e n ow ap pe al s; itco nt en ds th atth e fo rum -s el ect io n c laus e sh ou ldbe 2 in va li da te d b ot h b ecau se itis ag ai ns t the st atut or il y ex pr es se d p ub li c p ol ic y

of t he Uni te d S ta te s, s ee 4 6 U.S.C. § 30 50 9( a), an d b ecau se it s t erm s wer e n ot reas on ab ly comm

un ic at edto th e Myhras . W e co nc lu de th at46 U.S.C. § 3 05 09 (a) d idno t p rev en t Ro y al Cari bb ean fro m in cl ud in g t he forum -s el ect io n c laus e in th e Myhras ’ co nt ract . Nor d o we pe rcei ve an y

pro cedur al or s ub st an ti ve erro r in th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si on th at th e cl au se was re as on ab ly comm un ic at edto th e Myhras . Accor di ng ly, th e de ci si on of t he di stric t co urt t o d is m is s t he cas e was co rrec t, an d i ts jud gm en t m us t be affi rm ed .
I BACKGRO UND A. Facts Acco rd in g t o t he co m

pl ai nt , Mr. Myhra, the de ced en t, was a ci ti zen of t he Eng landwho als o re si de d i n En gl an d p rio r to hi s d eat h. He trav el edon a Ro y al Cari bb eancru is e ab oa rdth e v es se l Li be rty of the Seas , whi ch de pa rte d M ia m i o n (...continued) 1 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1). See R.1 at 1-2. Our jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 2 3 Case: 10-15840 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 3 of 29Octo be r 24 , 20 09 , andreturne d t o t he same po rt o n No ve m be r 1, 2 00 9. On Octo be r 28 , 20 09 , whi le on th e cru is e, Mr. M yhr a b ecame ill an d l at er was di ag no se d wi th Legi on na ire ’s Dis eas e. He subs eque nt ly die d, ap pa ren tl y as a co ns eque nc e o f th e d is eas e. Ano th er Lib erty

of the Seas pa ss en ge r, Je anYou ng , hadbe co m e il l o n a Sep te m be r 20 09 vo y ag e o f th e sa m e v es se l an d a ls o h addi edof wh atlat er was de te rm in edto be Legi on na ire ’s Dis eas e. The c om pl ai ntall eg es th atth e Cen te rs fo r Dis eas e Co nt ro l an d P rev en ti on (“ CDC”) ex am in edth e two cas es an d de te rm in edth atbo th pa ti en ts were i nf ect edwith a n i de nt ic al st rai n o f th e b act eri a an d “ th atth e o nl y

co m m on so ur ce” b etweenth e two pa ti en ts was t he Lib erty of th e Sea s. The co m

pl ai ntals o a ll eg es th at , du rin g t he ti m es of t he se vo y ag es , 3 Ro y al Cari bb ean ne gl ig en tl y m ai nt ai ne d i ts on -d eckwate r syste m , a si tu at io n t ha t co ul d h av e en co ur ag edth e g ro wth of l eg io ne ll a b act eri a, th e so ur ce o f Leg io nn ai re’s Dis eas e. The C DC’s in ve st ig at io n fo un d n o e vi de nc e o f le gi on el la on th e Lib erty

of the Seas , bu t al so co nc lu de d t ha t “ th e sh ip ha d u nd erg on e ex te ns iv e rem ed ia ti on effo rts pri orto [it s] in sp ect io n.” Spe ci fic al ly, al th ou gh th e 4 de ck -was hi ng syste m

was n otch lo rin at eddurin g e it he r Ms . You ng ’s or

R.1 at 3. 3 I d. (interna l quotation marks omitted). 4 4 Case: 10-15840 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 4 of 29Mr. Myhra’s v oyages , th atpro bl em ha d b een co rrec te d b y

th e ti m e o f th e CDC’s in sp ect io n.
B. Dis tri ct Co urt Pro ceed in gs The Est at e b ro ug htth is ne gl ig en ce ac ti on ag ai ns t Ro y al Cari bb ean inth e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a. Att ach edto th e co m pl ai ntwas ado cum en t l ab el ed“ Cru is e/ Cru is eTo ur Tick etCo nt ract .” That 5 do cu m en t co nt ai ne d aforum -s el ect io n c laus e, sp eci fic al ly pro vi di ng th atany li ti ga ti on was t o b e b ro ug htin th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a. The at ta ch m en t 6 do es no t i de nt ify, howe ve r, th e ap pl ic ab le ve ss el or t he da te s o f pa ss ag e. Ro y al Cari bb ean res po nd edto th e co m pl ai ntwith am ot io n t o d is m is s. Th e m ot io n a rg ue d t ha t, co nt rary to t he ass ert io n i n the co m pl ai nt , “ th e ap pl ic ab le te rm s an d c on di ti on s o f carria ge ” requi redth atan y act io n b e b ro ug htinth e co urts of Eng la ndan d Wales . The m ot io n a ndit s at ta ch m en ts setforth ad di ti on al ve nu e 7 fact s: Acco rd in g t o t he de cl arat io n o f a Ro y al Cari bb ean off ic ia l t es ti fy in g fr om bu si ne ss reco rd s, i n J un e 2 00 9, Su sa n M yhr a b oo ke d aRo y al Cari bb ean cru is e fo r See R.1-3. 5 I d. at 6. 6 R.18 at 1. Although the motion refer s to the courts of the United King dom, the 7 attache d documentation re fer s specific ally to the courts of Eng land and Wales. 5 Case: 10-15840 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 5 of 29he rs el f, he r hu sb an d (t he de ced en t To re Myhra) an d the ir d au gh te r, th ro ug h a

tra ve l ag en cy

cal le d “ 1s t4 Cru is in g.” Thi s ag en cy is lo cat edinEng land . Over 8 9 th e co ur se of t he ne xtsev eral m on th s, 1 st 4C ru is in g re cei ve d fi ve in vo ic es fro m Ro y al Cari bb ean rel at in g t o t he Myhr as ’ tri p, wh ic h i t fo rward edto th e Myhras . Each in vo ic e n ot edth at , for pa ss ag es bo ok edinth e Uni te d Ki ng do m , th e U.K. te rm s an d c on di ti on s ap pl ie d a ndco ul d b e acc es se d fr om a sp eci fie d web ad dr es s. InOcto be r, Ro y al Cari bb ean als o m ai le d t rav el do cum en ts to 1s t4 Cru is in g t o b e fo rward edto th e Myhras . On th e fi rs t p ag e o f th os e d oc um en ts was ano ti ce tha t th e te rm s an d c on di ti on s wer e b in di ng on gu es ts an d c ou ldbe lo cat edat the ba ck of th e b ro ch ur e. The t erm s an d c on di ti on s co nt ai ne d apro vi si on de fin in g R oyal Cari bb ean ’s “ li m itof l iabi li ty” to be th e li m itim po se d b y th e Ath en s Co nv en ti on . The b ro ch ur e al so pro vi de d: “ W e b ot h a gr ee tha t an y di sp ut e, 1 0 cl ai m or o th er m at te r ari si ng ou t o f orinco nn ect io n wi th y ou r co nt ractor you r ho li da y with u s wi ll on ly be d eal t wi th by the Co urts of En gl an d a ndW al es .” 1 1 Fi na ll y , th e b ro ch ur e p ro vi de d t ha t En gl is h l aw is co nt ro ll in g. Acco rd in g t o t he
See R.18-1 at 2 ( Marsha ll Decl.). 8 R.18-3 at 1 (Shah De cl.). 9 R.18-2 at 5. 1 0 I d. 1 1 6 Case: 10-15840 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 6 of 29de cl arat io n o f a Ro y al Cari bb ean off ic ia l tha t was subm it te d wi th th e m ot io n, the cru is e co nt ractth atwas a tt ach edto th e Est at e’s co m pl ai ntap pl ie d o nl y

to an ot he r ve ss el , th e Bri ll ia nc e o f th e Sea s, alt ho ug h t he face of t he do cu m en t co nt ai ns no 1 2 refe ren ce t o t he sh ip or t o o th er l im it s o n i ts ap pl ic at io n. The Est at e res po nd edto th e m ot io n t o d is m is s b y expl ai ni ng th atth e o nl y te rm s an d c on di ti on s t ha t i t i ni ti al ly hadbe enab le to lo cat e th ro ug h the Ro y al Cari bb eanwebs it e were tho se requi rin g l it ig at io n i n F lo rid a. The Es ta te subm it te d a d ecl arat io n fr om

it s at to rn ey

de sc rib in g t he m an ne r in whi ch th e te rm s an d co nd it io ns att ach edto th e co m pl ai ntwere o bt ai ne d. Th e atto rn ey st at edth at , in Ja nu ary 20 10 an d a ga in in Feb ru ary 20 10 , sev eral m on th s af te r th e Myhras ’ cru is e, he ha d v is it edth e Ro y al Cari bb ean webs it e an d h adpri nt edth e te rm s an d co nd it io ns . Furt he rm or e, th e Est at e arg ue d t ha t, ev enif R oyal Car ib be an ’s m ot io n ha d i de nt ifi edth e co rrec t t erm s fo r th e sp eci fic vo y ag e atis su e, th os e te rm s wer e un en fo rceabl e as ag ai ns t the publ ic po li cy of t he Uni te d S ta te s. Sp eci fic al ly, th e Est at e in vi te d t he co urt’s at te nt io n t o 4 6 U.S.C. § 30 50 9( a), whi ch pro hi bi ts 1 3
co m m on carr ie rs tra ns po rti ng pa ss en ge rs an d m ak in g u se of apo rt o f th e Uni te d St at es fro m

co ntractua ll y

li m it in g l iabi li ty for p ers on al in jury clai m s; th e Ath en s See R.18-1 at 4 ( Marsha ll Decl.). 1 2 See infra

pp. 17-18. 1 3 7 Case: 10-15840 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 7 of 29Co nv en ti on , to whi ch th e Uni te d Ki ng do m was asi gn at ory , wou ldim po se jus t su ch a li m it at io n. Acco rd in g t o the Est at e, be cau se th e p ro vi si on of t he co nt ract ap pl y in g t he Ath en s C on ve nt io n wo ul d b e v oi d i n the Uni te d S ta te s co urts , th e fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e, whi ch wou ldha ve th e eff ectof e nf or ci ng th e Ath en s Co nv en ti on , als o s ho ul d b e v oi d. Inrep ly, Ro y al Cari bb eansubm it te d asupp le m en ta l af fid av itfro m

it s l eg al di rect or . As anex pl an at io n a s t o wh y th e te rm s wer e n o l on ge r di sp la y ed pr om in en tl y

on th e web si te , sh e st at edth atth e web si te it se lf h adbe en“ ex te ns iv el y m od ifi ed ” b etweenth e ti m e o f th e Myhras ’ cru is e an d t he ir a tt orne y ’s webs it e se arch . Royal Ca rib be ansubm it te d tha t the forum -s el ect io n c laus e was

1 4 pr es um pt iv el y va li d u nd er fe de ral law an d t ha t n on e o f th e requi rem en ts for in va li da ti ng a cl au se were p res en t i n thi s ca se . The di stric t co urt ag reedwith R oyal Car ib be anan d d is m is se d the cas e. The co urt b eg anby sett in g fo rth th e ru le th atforum -s el ect io n c laus es are pr es um pt iv el y va li d a nden fo rceabl e ab se nt“ a st ro ng sh owi ng th aten fo rcem en t wou ldbe un fai r orun reas on ab le un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces .” Turn in g t o t he fact s 1 5 be fo re i t, the co urt n ot edth atth e Myhras co nt en de d tha t the Ro y al Cari bb ean R.28-1 at 2 (Mar shall Supp. Decl.). 1 4 R.29 at 2-3 (interna l quotation marks omitted). 1 5 8 Case: 10-15840 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 8 of 29web si te was u nc le ar; ho wev er, the y di d n otass ertth atth ey

ha d n otrece iv edinth e m ai l the tra ve l d oc um en ta ti on th atco nt ai ne d t he co rrec t t erm s an d c on di ti on s. 1 6 Und er the se cir cu m st an ces , th e co urt co nc lu de d t ha t the Est at e h adno t de m on st rat edth atth e Myhras ha d a gr eedto th e fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e in th e co nt ract“ th ro ug h fr au d o r ov erre ach in g,” no r ha d i t s ho wn t ha t “ th e ch os enlaw wou ldde pr iv e [the Est at e] of a remedy .” Acco rd in gl y , th e Est at e h ad“ fai le d t o 1 7
m ak e th e stro ng sh owi ng requi red ” to vo ida pr es um pt iv el y va li d fo ru m -s el ect io n cl au se . W it h re sp ectto th e Est at e’s pr in ci pa l ar gu m en t re gard in g the ap pl ic at io n

1 8 of th e Ath en s C on ve nt io n a s a v io la ti on of t he publ ic po li cy of t he Uni te d S ta te s, th e co urt d et erm in edth atitwas “ witho utm eri t s in ce as a U.K[.] res id en t i t i s reas on ab le for

Pla in ti ff t o b rin g t hi s ac ti on be fo re the Co urts of En gl an d.” 1 9 Mo reo ve r, th e co urt n ot edth atth e “ Pl ai nt iff ha s n otsu gg es te d t ha t En gl an d i s n ot a le ga ll y co m pe te ntforum

forhe r cl ai m .” The co urt d idno t ev al ua te 2 0 in de pe nd en tl y

whet he r, un de r fed eral law, the li m it at io n o n l iabi li ty con ta in edin th e Ath en s C on ve nt io n, wh ic h t he Est at e m ai nt ai ne d wo ul d h av e b een en fo rceabl e I d. at 5. 1 6 I d. 1 7 I d. (interna l quotation marks omitted). 1 8 I d. at 6. 1 9 I d. 2 0 9 Case: 10-15840 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 9 of 29in th e co nt ractua ll y ch os enforum , affec te d t he en fo rceabi li ty of th e fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e it se lf. Fi nd in g n o i m pe di m en t t o e nf

or cem en t o f th e cl au se , th e d is tri ctco urt d is m is se d t he act io n. The Est at e ti m el y

ap pe al ed .
II

DISCUSS IO N Inth is ap pe al , we m

us t d et erm in e whe th er the forum -s el ect io n c laus e de si gn at in g t he co urts of En gl an d a ndW al es as the ap pr op ria te ve nu e fo r an y li ti ga ti on ari si ng ou t the Myhr as ’ vo y ag e is co nt rary to t he publ ic po li cy of t he Uni te d S ta te s an d t he refo re u ne nf or ceab le init s co urts . W e tr eata di sm is sa l b as ed on a fo rum -s el ect io n c laus e as a qu es ti on of p ro pe r ve nu e u nd er Fe de ral Ru le of Ci vi l Pr oc edur e 1 2( b) (3 ). Lip co n v . Und erwri te rs at Ll oyd’s, Lon do n, 1 48 F.3d 12 85 , 12 90 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). Altho ug h, as a ge ne ral rul e, we rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to di sm is s u nd er Ru le 12 (b )(3 ) with s om e m eas ur e o f de fere nc e, we rev ie w th is qu es ti on de no vo when itari se s i n the co nt ex t o f anin te rn at io na l ag reem en t. Id . at 1 29 0- 91 . Furth erm or e, al th ou gh we tak e th e fac ts of the 2 1

In L ipcon v. Under

writers at L loyd’s, L ondon, 148 F.3d 1285 ( 11th Cir. 1998), we set 2 1 forth our r easoningfor modifying the usual standar d of re view of 12(b)(3) dismiss als in this (continued...) 10 Case: 10-15840 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 10 of 29co m

pl ai ntas t ru e, we do so on ly “ to th e ex te ntth ey are u nc on tro ve rte d b y de fen da nt [’s] affid av it s.” Ho m e In s. Co . v. Tho m as Indus ., Inc ., 89 6 F .2d13 52 , 13 55 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Whe n t he pa rti es subm it co nf li ct in g a ffi da vi ts , th e co urt, i n t he ab se nc e o f anev id en ti ary he ari ng , “ is in cl in edto gi ve gre at er wei gh t t o t he pl ai nt iff’s ver si on of t he juri sd ic ti on al fact s an d t o c on stru e su ch fact s i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p la in ti ff.” Id . In s um , Ru le 12 (b )(3 ) is a so m ewh atun ique co nt ex t o f di sm is sa l i n wh ic h we c on sc io us ly lo okbe y on d t he m ere a ll eg at io ns of aco m pl ai nt , and , alt ho ug h we c on ti nu e to fav orth e p la in ti ff’s fac ts inth e co nt ex t o f an y actua l ev id en ti ary di sp ut e, we do no t v ie w th e al le ga ti on s o f th e co m pl ai ntas t he ex cl us iv e b as is forde ci si on . 2 2 (...continued) 2 1 context: Not only do such dec isions at tim es re quire interpr etation of the provisions of a contra ct--de terminations that we r eview denovo--but such de cisions also, at least in the context of international agree ments, require a complex analy sis of fundame ntal fairne ss and public policy --de terminations that are quintessentially leg al. We there fore hold that the enfor cea bility of for um-selec tion and choice -of- law provisions in international agree ments arequestions of law that we revie w de novo. I d. at 1290-91 (c itations omi tted). 5B Charles Alan Wright et al., Fe dera l Practice and Proce dure § 1352 ( 3d ed. 2004) 2 2 (notingthat, on a 12(b) (3) motion, “fa cts must be shown that will defeat the plaintiff’s asse rtion of venue ,” and that “[a] di strict court may examine fac ts outside the complaint to determine whether its venue is proper ” (e mphasis added) ); see a lso Doe 1 v. AOL L L C, 552 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2009) (“ [P ]l eading s need not be acc epted a s true, and f acts outside the plea dings may be conside red.” ). 11

Case: 10-15840 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 11 of 29W it h t ha t s ta nd ardin m in d, we n ow turn t o t he sp eci fic s o f th e cas e b efo re

us . The rel ev an t p orti onof t he pa rti cu la r fo ru m claus e rea ds as f

ol lo ws: Any dis pu te be twee n u s, wh ic h c an no t b e se tt le d b y ag reem en t, m ay be refe rredto th e Co nc il ia ti on Serv ic e o pe rat edby the Pas se ng er Sh ip pi ng Ass oc ia ti on (P.S.A.). The C on ci li at io n S erv ic e is free for y outo us e. It i s n otav ai labl e whe re the cla im so le ly or m ai nl y co nc ern s p hysic al in

jury or il ln es s o r th e co ns eque nc es of s uc h i nju ry oril ln es s. . . . If y oudo no t wi sh to us e th e PSA’s Co nc il ia ti on Serv ic e o r th e di sp ut e is no t re so lv edas ares ul t o f us in g t he Serv ic e, y oum ay go to Co urt. We bo th ag ree t ha t an y di sp ut e, cl ai m

or o th er m at te r ari si ng ou t o f orin co nn ect io n wi th y ou r co ntractor you r ho li da y with u s wi ll on ly be d eal t wi th by the Co urts of En gl an d a ndW al es . The co nt ract be twee n u s i s g ov ern edby E ng li shlaw. R.1 8- 2 a t 5 (em

ph as is ad de d) . The Est at e as ks us to in va li da te th e cl au se . Its pri nc ip al co nt en ti on is th at th e eff ectof t he forum -s el ect io n c laus e is to im po se a li m it at io n o n l iabi li ty tha t i s ag ai ns t the publ ic po li cy

of t he Uni te d S ta te s. Fu rth er, ev enif t he claus e d oe s n ot co nt rav en e p ub li c p ol ic y , th e Est at e m ai nt ai ns th atth e co urt s ho ul d i nv al id at e it no ne th el es s b ecau se itwas n otreas on ab ly comm un ic at edto th e Myhras . W e ad dr es s t he se arg um en ts in tu rn . 2 3 Although the Estate conte nded in the district cour t that the pleading s prese nted a 2 3 g enuine issue of

fac t as to which set of te rms and conditions applied to their voyag e, they do not press this argument on appea l. We take the Estate’ s position at thi s time effe ctively to conce de that Roy al Caribbea

n has identified the a

pplicable c ontrac t, but to maintain that it s terms are unenfor cea

ble. 12 Case: 10-15840 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 12 of 29A.

W e b eg in by sett in g fo rth th e p rin ci pl es th atgo ve rnth e en fo rcem en t o f fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus es in th e Uni te d S ta te s co urts . The fo un da ti on al au th or it y is The Brem env. Zap at a Off-S ho re Co ., 40 7 U.S. 1 , 92 S. Ct. 1 90 7 (1 97 2) . In Th e Brem en , th e Co urt ex am in edsu ch a cl au se ina co m m erci al sh ip pi ng co nt ractan d he ldth atitsh ou ldbe reg ard edas “pr im a fac ie va li d” an d s ho ul d b e en fo rced

“ ab se nta st ro ng sh owi ng th atitsh ou ldbe setasi de .” Id . at 1 0, 1 5, 9 2 S . Ct. at 19 13 , 19 16 . The b ur de n i s o n the pa rty resi st in g e nf or cem en t t o “ cl earl y

sh ow t ha t en fo rcem en t wo ul d b e u nr eas on ab le an d u nju st , or tha t the claus e was in va li d fo r su ch reas on s as frau d o r ov erre ach in g.” Id. at15 , 92 S. Ct. at19 16 . The Co urt al so id en ti fie d, h owe ve r, sp eci fic reas on s wh y a Uni te d S ta te s co urt wo ul d h ol d a co nt ractua l ch oi ce-o f-fo rum claus e u ne nf

or ceab le ; ch ie f am on g t he m was t he po ss ib il it y

th at“ en fo rcem en t wo ul d c on tra ve ne a st ro ng publ ic po li cy of t he forum in whi chsu itis bro ug ht , whet he r de cl aredby statut e o r by j ud ic ia l d eci si on .” Id ., 92 S. Ct. at19 16 . The Co urt ac kn owl ed ge d t ha t s om e lo wer co urts als o h adhe ld th ata fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e sh ou ldno t b e en fo rced“ if t he ch os enforum is se rio us ly inc on ve ni en t fo r th e tr ia l o f th e act io n,” an d m ai nt ai ne d t ha t s uc h a co ns id erat io n m ay

be rel ev an t t o e nf

or ceab il it y

inso m e cas es . Id. at16 , 92 S. Ct. at19 16 (em

ph as is in ori gi na l). Nev erthe le ss , itfou ndno ev id en ce i n t he reco rd 13 Case: 10-15840 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 13 of 29be fo re i t tha t an y in co nv en ie nc e was ou ts id e th e co nt em pl at io n o f th e co nt ract in g pa rti es . See i d. at17 -1 8, 9 2 S . Ct. at19 17 . The Co urt al so no te d tha t, u nd er cert ai n c irc um st an ces , “ [t]he rem ot en es s o f th e fo ru m m ig htsu gg es t tha t the ag reem en t was anadhe si ve on e, or th atth e p art ie s d idno t h av e th e p art ic ul ar co nt ro ve rs y

in m in d wh enth ey

m ad e th ei r ag reem en t; y etev enth ere t he party cl ai m in g s ho ul d b ear ahe av y bu rd enof p ro of

.” Id . at 1 7, 9 2 S . Ct. at19 17 . Perc ei vi ng no ne of t he se im pe di m en ts inth is “ free ly neg ot ia te d i nt ern at io na l co m m erci al tra ns act io n” to subs ta nt ia te th os e co nc ern s, the Co urt uph el d t he fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e. Id ., 92 S. Ct. at19 17 . The Brem enco nf

irmed a s ub st an ti al ch an ge inth e ap pr oa ch of Un it ed St at es co urts . It m ad e cl ear t ha t the da y s wh enforum -s el ect io n c laus es were co ns id erednu ll an d v oi d b ecau se th ey pu rp orte d t o “ ou st ” a co urt o f th e au th or it y gi ve n i t b y

co ns ti tu ti on al or s ta tu to ry au th or it y were n o l on ge r wit h u s. Id . at 9 , 92 S. Ct . at 1 91 3 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . The Br em enreco gn iz edth e real ity th atpri va te ly barg ai ne d- fo r fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus es were a n eces sa ry co m po ne ntof t he expa nd edin te rn at io na l co m m erci al rel at io ns hi ps of o urti m e.

“ The ex pans io n o f Am eri can bu si ne ss an d i ndus try will ha rd ly be en co ur ag edif, no twi th st an di ng so le m

n c on tra ct s, we i ns is t o n apa ro ch ia l co nc ep t tha t al l di sp ut es m

us t b e res ol ve d u nd er o urlaws an d i n o urco urts .” Id ., 92 S. Ct. at 14 Case: 10-15840 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 14 of 2919 12 . Nev erthe le ss , The Br em enlef t fo r an ot he r da y

si gn ifi can t que st io ns . Chi ef am on g t ho se was wh ethe r it s h ol di ng ap pl ie d t o c as es inwhi ch th e p art ie s di sp la y eda si gn ifi can t i ne qu al it y of b arg ai ni ng po wer, su chas b etweena co ns um er an d aco m

pany, as op po se d t o t wo s op hi st ic at edco m m erci al en ti ti es . In Carn iv al Cru is e Lin es , Inc . v. Sh ut e, 49 9 U.S. 5 85 , 11 1 S . Ct. 1 52 2 (1 99 1) , th e Supr em e Co urt cl ari fie d, h owe ve r, th atth e p rin ci pl es of Th e Bre m enap pl y ev ento so m e d eci de dl y

unba la nc edrel at io ns hi ps , and , sp eci fic al ly, to co nt ract s o f pa ss ag e on cru is e sh ip s. AfterShut e, itis cle ar tha t s om e co nt ractua l fo ru m -s el ect io n 2 4 cl au se s, ev enif n otfree ly neg ot ia te d, ar e p rima facie en fo rceabl e. The C ou rt no te d t ha t the re were si gn ifi can t ad vant ag es to th e in cl us io n o f a “ reas on ab le ” fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e in a ro ut in e co m m erci al cru is e ti ck et . Id. at59 3, 1 11 S. Ct. at15 27 . Suc h aclaus e av oi ds li ti ga ti on inm ul ti pl e fo ra; itde te rm in es be fo reh an d whe re d is pu te s ca n b e b ro ug htan d t he refo re re du ces th e ti m e an d e xp en se of li ti ga ti on an d p ro m ot es eas e o f jud ic ia l ad m in is tra ti on . All o f th es e fac to rs res ul t in a lo weri ng of o ve ral l co ns um er co st s. See id . at 5 93 -9 4, 1 11 S. Ct. at15 28 . The Court wa s expl icit in its acknow ledgment of the fa ctual diffe renc es betwe en 2 4 international c ommercia l agree ments and other a gree ments, of which the ticke t purcha se at issue was one : “Common sense dictates that a ticket of this kind will be a form c ontrac t the terms of which ar e not subject to neg otiation, and that an individual purcha sing the ticket will not have barg ainingparity

with the cruise line.” Carnival Cruise L ines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 593, 111 S. Ct . 1522, 1527 (1991). 15

Case: 10-15840 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 15 of 29The Co urt m ad e v ery cl ear, h owe ve r, th at , alt ho ug h apa rty woul d c on ti nu e to be ar

“ th e h eav y

burd enof p ro of

” es tabl is he d i n Th e Bre m en , cou rts rem ai ne d fr ee t o ex am in e th es e cl au se s fo r pr oo f of a la ckof “ fu nd am en ta l fa irn es s,” i nc lu di ng for th e co nc ern s i de nt ifi edin The B rem ensu ch as f rau d o r ov erre ach in g, o r a l ackof no ti ce t o t he pa rty resi st in g e nf or cem en t. Id . at 5 95 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) . The Co urt’s d eci si on in Shut e al so m ak es cle ar tha t a r ou ti ne co nt ractfor pa ss ag e o n acru is e sh ip als o m ay be scrut in iz edto de te rm in e whe th er i t v io la te s a st ro ng na ti on al publ ic po li cy em bo di edinleg is la ti on or i n ajud ic ia l d eci si on . In de ed , inShut e, th e Co urt was ask edto ex am in e whe th er the forum -s el ect io n cl au se at i ss ue vi ol at edth e p ub li c p ol ic y em bo di edinth e st atut e atis su e in th e pr es en t ca se , 46 U.S.C. § 3 05 09 (a). Altho ug h t he Co urt d et erm in edth atth ere 2 5
was no vi ol at io n o f publ ic po li cy inShut e, th e Co urt’s carefu l an al y si s o f th e

2 6 si tu at io n l eav es no do ub t tha t Th e Bre m en ’s dec larat io n t ha t fo ru m -s el ect io n

Prior to a re numberingof Title 46 in 2006, this section was located at 46 App. U.S.C. 2 5 § 183c. We shall ref

er to it by its curre nt section number, 46 U.S.C. § 30509(a) , throughout the opinion for ea se of r eading , but we note that many of the pre cede nts cited here in use its former numbering . Specifica lly , the Court held that the cla use at issue, whic h mere ly direc ted litigation to 2 6 Florida , did not directly

limitliability , nor did it forec lose a judicial de termination of liability . As such, the c lause did not violate the statute, nor did it implicate the principal conc erns of Congr ess in enac ting it. Shute, 499 U.S. at 595-97. 16 Case: 10-15840 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 16 of 29cl au se s ar e to be scrut in iz edfora vi ol at io n o f publ ic po li cy rem ai ns ali ve an d wel l in th e wak e o f Sh ut e. Acco rd in gl y , as t he di stric t co urt re co gn iz ed , th e fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e atis su e in th is li ti ga ti on is subjec t t o ju di ci al scrut in y to de te rm in e whe th er i t v io la te s t he publ ic po li cy em bo di edinth e st atut e.

B. The pre ci se di sp ut e h ere i s wh ethe r th e d es ig na ti on of the co urts of En gl an d an d Wales as t he ex cl us iv e fo ru m forad jud ic at in g d is pu te s v io la te d t he st ro ng publ ic po li cy

of t he Uni te d S ta te s s uc h t ha t the claus e sh ou ldno t b e en fo rcedby Uni te d S ta te s co urts . As we h av e jus t n ot ed , th e Est at e co nt en ds th atsu ch a publ ic po li cy is setforthin46 U.S.C. § 3 05 09 , whi ch read s, i n p ert in en t p art : (a ) Pro hi bi tio n.-- (1 ) In ge nera l.-- The own er, m as te r, m an ag er, o r ag en t o f a ve ss el tra ns po rti ng pa ss en ge rs be twee n p orts inth e Uni te d St at es , or b etweena po rt i n t he Uni te d S ta te s an d apo rt i n a fo rei gn co un try, m ay

no t i nc lu de ina reg ul at io n o r co nt racta pr ov is io n l im it in g- - (A) th e li ab il it y

of t he own er, m as te r, orag en t fo r pe rs on al in

jury or de ath c au se d b y

th e n eg li ge nc e o r fau lt of th e o wne r orth e o wne r’s em pl oyees o r ag en ts ; o r (B) th e ri gh t o f a cl ai m an t fo r pe rs on al in jury or de ath t o a tr ia l b y co urt o f co m

pe te ntjuri sd ic ti on .
17 Case: 10-15840 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 17 of 29(2 ) Voi dnes s.-- A pro vi si on de sc rib edinpa rag rap h (1 ) is vo id .

. . . . InShut e, th e Supr em e Co urt m ad e cl ear t ha t we ar e to di sc ernth e co nt ou rs of th e p ub li c p ol ic y

em bo di edin th e st atut e th ro ug h t he pro ces s o f st atut ory in te rp ret at io n. In de ed , th e Co urt, b y it s o wn ex am

pl e, de m on st rat edth atitwas b y refe ren ce t o t he pl ai n wo rd in g o f th e st atut e an d i ts leg is la ti ve hi st ory th atwe can di sc ernth atpubl ic po li cy . Shu te , 49 9 U.S. at59 6, 1 11 S. Ct. 1 52 8- 29 . W it h Sh ut e as our gu id e, we tu rnno w to ou r as se ss m en t o f th e fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e at is su e in th is li ti ga ti on . W e tu rnfir stto th e la ng ua ge of t he st atut e. Iness en ce, the st atut e p rev en ts , in pe rti ne ntpa rt, ash ip own er fro m pl aci ng , inth e te rm s an d c on di ti on s o f a co nt ractof p as sa ge or s im il ar i ns tru m en t, a l im it at io n o n l iabi li ty for p ers on al in jury or de ath. Onit s fa ce, the refo re, the st atut e’s pl ai n wo rd in g d oe s n ot pr oh ib itth e u se of aforum -s el ect io n c laus e. The fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e atis su e 2 7 in th is cas e d oe s n otpl ace ali m it at io n o f li ab il ity inth e co nt ractof p as sa ge . The Est at e co nt en ds , nev erthe le ss , th atRo y al Cari bb ean ineffe ct acco m pl is he d ali m it at io n o n l iabi li ty andda m ag es by pla ci ng inth e co nt racta
See Shute, 499 U.S. at 596, 111 S. Ct at 1529 (noting that the statute c ontains “no 2 7 prohibition of a forum- selec tion clause” ). 18

Case: 10-15840 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 18 of 29st ip ul at io n t ha t an y su itm us t b e b ro ug htinth e co urts of En gl an d a ndW al es . Acco rd in g t o t he Est at e, whe n t he Uni te d Ki ng do m rat ifi edth e Ath en s C on ve nt io n an d e xp res sl y

in co rp or at edth e Co nv en ti on in to it s l aw, iteffe ct eda li m it at io n o n li ab il it y . W e th eref

or e are pre se nt edwith t he qu es ti on whet he r th e u se of a 2 8 fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e th atsel ect s v enue wher e d om es ti c la w, if ap pl ic ab le , wou ld effe cta li m it at io n o f li ab il it y sh ou ldbe co ns id eredwithi n t he am bi t o f th e st atut ory pro hi bi ti on , and , if s o, wh ethe r su cha pr oh ib it io n c on st itut es a su ffi ci en tl y

st ro ng publ ic po li cy

of t he Uni te d S ta te s t o b ar en fo rcem en t o f th e cl au se . Sev eral co ns id erat io ns m il it at e ag ai ns t ac cep ti ng th e Est at e’s vi ew an d ag ai ns t an swe rin g t he qu es ti on inth e affi rm at iv e. The d an ge r pr es en te d b y a sh ip own er’s u ni la te ral im

po si ti on of ali m it at io n o n l iabi li ty is d eci de dl y di ffer en t fro m th atpo se d b y

a va li d c ho ic e-o f-l aw cl au se . As th e st atut e’s le gi sl at iv e hi st ory m ak es cle ar, Co ng res s’s co nc erninen act in g § 30 50 9( a) was th e u ni la te ral im po si ti on of b arg ai ni ng po wer b y a sh ip own er t o l im itit s l iabi li ty for i ts ne gl ig en t ac ts . In Sh ut e, th e Supr em e Co urt s pe ci fic al ly not edth at§ 3 05 09 (a)

“ was en act edin res po ns e to pa ss en ge r-t ic ke t co nd it io ns pu rp orti ng to li m itth e
See Mer chant Shipping A ct, 1995, c. 21, § 183 ( U.K.) ( “The provisions of the 2 8 Convention relatingto the Carria g e of Passe ng ers a nd their L ug g ag e by

Sea as se t out in P art I

of Schedule 6 . . . sha ll have the f orce of law in the United King dom.”).

19 Case: 10-15840 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 19 of 29sh ip own er’s l iabi li ty for n eg li ge nc e o r to rem ov e th e is su e o f li ab il ity fro m th e sc ru ti ny of an y

co urt b y m ean s o f a cl au se pro vi di ng th at‘ th e que st io n o f li ab il ity an d t he m eas ur e o f da m ag es sh al l b e d et erm in edby arbi tra ti on .’ ” 49 9 U.S. at59 6, 11 1 S . Ct. at15 29 (qu ot in g S . Rep . No. 7 4- 20 61 , at 6 (19 36 )); see als o S afet y of Life an d P ro pe rty at Sea : Hea rin gs on H.R. 99 69 be fo re the Hou se Co m m it te e o n Mer ch . Mari ne an d F is he rie s, 7 4t h C on g., 2 d S es s., p t. 4 , at 2 0, 3 6- 37 , 57 , 10 9- 11 0, 1 19 (19 36 ). The ab se nc e o f an y refe ren ce i n t he leg is la ti ve hi st ory to a fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e m ig htbe di sm is se d a s p ur el y hi st or ic al , gi ve n t ha t s uc h cl au se s wer e n otem

pl oyed wi th th e sa m e fre qu en cy at t he ti m e o f th e o rig in al pa ss ag e o f th e st atut e. Neve rth el es s, Co ng res s h as rev is it edth e st atut e aft er Th e Brem enan d S hu te ha s n otsee n fi t t o i nc lu de ch oi ce-o f-fo ru m claus es withi n t he st atut ory pro hi bi ti on . Con gr es s’s co nc erninen act in g t he leg is la ti on was t o

2 9 fo rb idth e u ni la te ral im

po si ti on of ali m it at io n o f li ab il it y by a shi p o wne r witho ut an y reco ur se to jud ic ia l p ro ces s. By con tra st , a ch oi ce-o f-fo ru m claus e m erel y di rect s t he li ti ga ti on to a pa rti cu la r fo ru m , us ua ll y on e wit h asi gn ifi can t co nn ect io n wi th th e in ci de ntor wi th th e p art ie s, fo r ad jud ic at io n. Itlea ve s i t up t o The c urre nt version of § 30509, for merly codified at 46 App. U.S.C. § 183c, was 2 9 enac ted in 1936. It was ame nded to include subsec tion (b), re lating to e motional distress, menta l suffe ringand psycholog ical injury , in 1996. See Coast Guard Authorization Act, Pub. L . 104-324, § 1129(b) , 110 Stat. 3901, 3984-85. It was re numbere d in 2006, and the languag e wa s modified slightly

without substantive chang e, for consistency

throughout the title. See Act of Oct. 6, 2006, Pub. L . 109-304, § 6(c ), 120 Stat. 1485, 1514-15. 20 Case: 10-15840 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 20 of 29th atjuri sd ic ti on to de te rm in e th e ap pl ic ab le subs ta nt iv e law to be ap pl ie d t o t he

di sp ut e ei th er thr ou gh th e ap pl ic at io n o f it s o wn ch oi ce-o f-l aw ru le s o r th ro ug h i ts en fo rcem en t o f a s ep arat e ch oi ce-o f-l aw cl au se inth e und erl y in g c on tra ct . In ei th er ca se , th e jud gm en t o f th e co urt ex erci si ng juri sd ic ti on , no t the si m pl e fi atof th e sh ip own er, d et erm in es th e la w to be ap pl ie d t o t he cas e. The pl ai nt iff

s ar e qui te co rrec t i n c on te nd in g t ha t, i n m an y cas es , a fo ru m ev en tu al ly w il l ap pl y

it s o wn l aw oren fo rce t he ch oi ce-o f-l aw cl au se of t he co nt ract . In thi s ca se , forin st an ce, a ch oi ce-o f-l aw cl au se cal ls for th e ap pl ic at io n of th e Co nv en ti onwith i ts li m it at io n o n d am ag es . Alth ou gh we reac h n o co nc lu si on on th e li ke ly cou rs e o f li ti ga ti oninth e co urts of En gl an d a ndW al es , th e p la in ti ffs co nt en d t ha t tho se co urts wou ldap pl y th e Co nv en ti on , eithe r as a pr ov is io n o f Eng li sh law or t hr ou gh th e en fo rcem en t o f th e ch oi ce-o f-l aw 3 0 cl au se . Neve rth el es s, s uc h ade ci si on wou ldno t b e th e d eci si onof o ne of t he

3 1

Athens Convention relating to the Car riag e of Passe ng ers a

nd their L ug g ag e by

Sea ar t. 3 0 2, Dec . 13, 1974, 1463 U.N.T.S. 19 (providingthat the Convention applies to any car riag e if, amongother re asons, the ship flies the fla gof or is re g istered in a State Par ty to the Convention, or if the c ontrac t of ca

rriag e wa s made in a State Par ty to the Convention); Mercha nt Shippi ng Act, 1995, c. 21, § 183 ( U.K.) ( “The provisions of the Convention relatingto the Carria g e of Passeng ers a

nd their L ug g ag e by

Sea as se t out in P art I

of Schedule 6 . . . shall have the forc e of law in the United King dom.”). See R.18-2 at 5 ( “The provisions of . . . [] The Athe ns Convention[ ] apply to your 3 1 cruise . . . . T his means you are not entitled to make any claim ag ainst us which is not expressly permitted by

The Athe ns Convention or which is in excess of the limits provided by The Athe ns Convention.”). 21

Case: 10-15840 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 21 of 29pa rti es , bu t o f th e co urts of En gl an d a ndW al es . If, as i s l ik el y , th os e co urts were

to ap pl y th ei r own law wi thit s l im it at io n o f li ab il it y , th ey , inall li ke li ho od , wou ld be pro ceed in g a lo ng a pa th no t tha t d iff eren t fr om

th e co ur se a Uni te d S ta te s co urt wou ldfol lo w. Ind eed , itis cle ar tha t Co ng res s und ers to odth atth e u su al rul es of juri sd ic ti on an d c ho ic e o f la w wou ldpro du ce, i n s om e in st an ces , a li m it at io n o n li ab il it y : As su m in g t ha t the pl ai nt iff was i njuredonth e h ig h s eas , othe r pr ov is io ns of fed eral law, s pe ci fic al ly the Death o n t he Hig h S eas Act, wo ul d h av e li m it edhi s reco ve ry . See 4 6 U.S.C. § 30 30 3 (l im it in g l iabi li ty to p ecu ni ary lo ss es ). 3 2 Fu rth erm or e, itis no t atall cle ar wh ethe r Co ng res s wo ul d c on si de r it ap pr op ria te to ex te ndth e sc op e o f th e st atut e to co ve r fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus es or, if i t wer e to do so , ho w Con gr es s wo ul d c raftsu ch a st atut e. W e h av e n ot edab ov e th e v ery si gn ifi can t ro le th atsu ch claus es pl ay inth e m ai nt en an ce o f th e p res en t in te rn at io na l l eg al ord er. The y all ow the co urts of t he Uni te d S ta te s t o re sp ectno t on ly the rig ht s an d e xp res se d p refe ren ces of n at io na ls of o th er co un tri es , bu t al so to res pe ctth e ab il ity

of o th er n at io na l juris di ct io ns to ad jud ic at e d is pu te s. Acco rd in gl y , ou r co nt in ue d re co gn it io n o f th es e cl au se s, s ub ject t o the li m it at io ns th e Co urt h as id en ti fie d, s ub st an ti al ly affect s t he for ei gn rel at io ns of the Uni te d St at es . A pru de nt ia l re sp ectforth e p rero ga ti ve s o f th e p ol it ic al bra nc he s co un se ls
Death on the High Seas Ac t, ch. 111, 41 Stat. 537, 537-38 (Mar . 30, 1920). 3 2 22 Case: 10-15840 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 22 of 29th atwe no t i nf er a s ta tu to ry

li m it at io n o n s uc h d ev ic es ab se ntanex pl ic itex erci se of co ng res si on al jud gm en t. To p rev en t an ot he r so ve rei gn fro m ap pl y in g i ts subs ta nt iv e p ol ic y

ch oi ces to a cas e in vo lv in g i ts own na ti on al s an d i ts in te rn al co m m erci al rel at io ns hi ps is a co ur se th atwe sh ou ldno t u nd ert ak e o n o ur own . Und er the se cir cu m st an ces , we th in k t he ap pr op ria te co ur se is to in te rp retth e st atut e to it s p la in lan gu ag e u nl es s C on gr es s, b y ap pr op ria te am en dm en t, m ak es po li cy ch oi ces on th e co nt ou rs of c ho ic e-o f-fo rum claus es th atin vo lv e th e Co un try’ s i nt ern at io na l co m m erci al rel at io ns hi ps . 3 3

C. Fi na ll y , th e Est at e m ai nt ai ns th at , eve n i f § 3 05 09 is no bar to th e fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e, th atclaus e n ev erthe le ss sh ou ldbe he ldun en fo rceabl e be cau se itwas a ch ie ve d b y ov erre ach in g. Inde te rm in in g wh ethe r th ere was frau d o r ov erre ach in g i n a no n- ne go ti at edforum -s el ect io n c laus e, we lo okto whet he r th e cl au se was reas on ab ly comm

un ic at edto th e co ns um er. A us efu l two- pa rt te stof “ reas on ab le co m

m un ic at iv en es s” tak es in to acco un t the cl au se ’s ph y si cal ch arac te ris ti cs an d wh ethe r th e p la in ti ffs ha d t he The Estate has identified no other public policy

impediment to the application of this 3 3 clause to the situation before us. The dec edent a nd his family

are British nationals who purcha sed passa g e on the ship fr om a B ritish travel ag ent in Britain. The def endant c ompany maintains office s in that country and re gularly

solicits busi ness there . Cf. The B reme n, 407 U.S. at 17, 92 S. Ct. at 1917 (“We are not here dealingwith an agree ment betwee n two Americ ans to resolve the ir essentially

local disputes in a re mote alien for um.”). 23 Case: 10-15840 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 23 of 29ab il it y to be co m e m ean in gf

ul ly info rm edof t he claus e an d t o re ject i ts te rm s. Kren ke l v . Kerzn er In t’l Ho te ls Ltd ., 57 9 F .3d12 79 , 12 81 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (p er cu ria m). Att ach edto Ro y al Cari bb ean ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s i s a s ho rt s ect io n ph ot oc op ie d fr om

anob vi ou sl y

len gt hy bo ok le t en ti tl ed“ Ro y al Cari bb ean In te rn at io na l, Worl dwi de Cru is es , Seco ndEdi ti on 20 09 -2 01 0.” A sect io n 3 4
en ti tl ed“ Bo ok in g C on di ti on s” be gi ns on pa ge 12 8, an d s et s fo rth , inve ry sm al l, bu t l eg ib le , ty

pe , con di ti on s ap pl ic ab le to ev ery st ag e o f th e v oyage f ro m bo ok in g to actua l trav el . Aftersec ti on s re la ti ng to bo ok in g, trav el to an d fr om th e sh ip , 3 5
an d v ari ou s o n- bo ardco nc ern s i s a s ect io n e nt it le d “ Add it io na l In fo rm at io n.” 3 6 Thi s s ect io n i nc lu de s a v ari ety of i nf orm at io n a dd res si ng a ran ge of s ub jects . It al so in cl ud es , inid en ti cal typefac e to th atof t he en ti re Bo ok in g C on di ti on s se ct io n, a n um

be r of sec ti on s re la te d t o R oyal Car ib be an ’s li ab il it y un de r cl ear, pl ai n- Eng li sh he ad in gs : “ Wha t i s yourli ab il it y ? ”, “ Wha t i s yourli m itof

R.18-2. 3 4 See id. at 2-4. Numbere d para graphs include such items, written in plain Eng lish, as 3 5 “How w ill my

holiday be conf irmed? ”, “Will the price c hang e? ”, “What ar e the pa ssport and visa require ments for my

holiday ? ” and “ What about special diets? ” I d. I d. at 4-5. 3 6 24 Case: 10-15840 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 24 of 29li ab il it y ? ” an d “ If I h av e a co m pl ai nt ? ” The l as t o f th es e se ct io ns be gi ns by

3 7 walk in g the cu st om er thr ou gh th e o n- bo ardco m pl ai ntpro ces s b efo re i nc lu di ng th e fo ru m -s el ect io n l an gu ag e atis su e h ere c on cern in g u nr es ol ve d d is pu te s. Acco rd in g t o t he affi da vi ts an d a tt ach m en ts subm it te d b y Ro y al Cari bb ean with i ts m ot io n t o d is m is s, the Myhr as ’ bo ok in g a ge ntrece iv edan d fo rward edto th e Myhras fiv e se pa rat e in vo ic es forth ei r Oct ob er 2 00 9 v oyage. Each co nt ai ne d a n ot ic e d ire ct in g the My hr as to th e “ UK term s an d c on di ti on s” acce ss ib le at a sp eci fic web a ddres s, an d, i n e ach cas e, th e n ot ic e was pri nt edon th e p ag e o f th e in vo ic e wit h t he m os t i m

po rtantin fo rm at io n: th e res erv at io n n um be r, pa ss en ge r na m es , dat es of t he vo y ag e an d c os ts . In a dd it io n t o t he se rep eat edrem in de rs 3 8 th atth e te rm s an d c on di ti on s o f th e curren t b ro ch ur e were app li cab le to th e bo ok in g, a f

ifty -o ddpa ge pa ck eten ti tl ed“ Ro y al Cari bb ean Int ern at io na l Trav el Doc um en ts ” d at edOcto be r 1, 2 00 9, was fo rward edto th e Myhras by the ir 3 9 bo ok in g a ge nt . On th e v ery fir stpa ge of t ha t p ack etdo cu m en ts was asi ng le -p ag e

“ Dear Gu es t(s )” l et te r, th e cl os e o f whi ch co nt ai ne d, i n a ll cap it al let te rs a se ct io n labe le d, “ IMP ORTANT NOT ICE TO GUESTS,” sp eci fic al ly dire ct in g a tt en ti on to

I d. 3 7 See R.18-3 at 8, 12, 16, 20, 24. 3 8 R.18-3 at 27. 3 9 25 Case: 10-15840 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 25 of 29th e te rm s an d c on di ti on s atth e b ackof t he bro ch ur e. 4 0

W e tu rnno w to th e su ffi ci en cy , inph y si cal ch arac te ris ti cs an d i n co m m un ic at io n t o the pl ai nt iff

s, o f th is claus e. InW al li s v . Prin ces s C ru is es , Inc ., 30 6 F .3d82 7, 8 36 (9t h C ir. 2 00 2) , th e Nin th Cir cu itrev ie weda si m il ar p ro vi si on in a ti ck etco nt ract ; i t was pri nt edintype 1 /1 6th o f anin ch hi gh an d “ bu rie d s ix se nt en ces in to [a] para gr ap h.” It al so was l ab el edcle arl y , ho wev er, an d was co nt ai ne d o n o ne of s ev eral pa ge s m ark ed“ PASSAGE CONTRACT” atth e to p. Id . (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Furt he r, each pa ss en ge r rec ei ve d ati ck et pa ck et , andat t he bo tt om of s ev eral pa ge s was a se ct io n l ab el ed“ IMP ORTANT NOTICE,” whi ch , als o i n 1 /1 6t h o f anin ch type, di rect edpa ss en ge rs to th e co nt ractterm s an d s pe ci fic al ly to a num be r of pa rag rap hs “ affe ct [in g] . . . le ga l rig ht s,” i nc lu di ng th e p arag rap h a t i ss ue . Id. at83 0 (c ap it al iz at io n m od ifi ed ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . The Ni nt h C irc ui t h el d t ha t, as a m atte r of ph y si cal pre se nt at io n, the claus e was reas on ab ly comm un ic at ed . Sim il arl y , in Sp at aro v. Kl os te r Cru is e, Ltd ., 89 4 F .2d44 (2dCir . 19 90 ) (p er cu ria m), th e

I d. The Estate ’s re sponse to the motion to dis miss in t he district cour t contends that 4 0 “Mrs. My hra doe s not reca ll reviewingor beingdirec ted to revie w” the r eleva nt sections of the brochur e. R.22 at 2. We do not understand he r to contend tha t the documents we re not sent to her or that she did not rec eive them, a lthough she does dispute whethe r there is any evidenc e in the re cord to that e ffe ct. These are not competingalleg ations cre atinga question of f act that cannot be resolved on a

motion to di smiss for improper ve nue. The y are , instead, sepa

rate piece s of a c onsistent narrative. 26

Case: 10-15840 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 26 of 29Seco ndCir cu ithe ldth ata cl au se was re as on ab ly comm un ic at edwhen itwas in cl ud edin sm al l ty

pe onpa ge sev enof a n e ig ht -p ag e cru is e ti ck et . In Sp at aro , as he re, the re was a no ti ce t o p as se ng ers to readth e ap pl ic ab le term s an d c on di ti on s, an d t ha t n ot ic e was co nt ai ne d o n “ th e p ag e th atpa ss en ge rs wou ldbe m os t l ik el y to read , th e p ag e co nt ai ni ng th e in fo rm at io n m os t re le va ntto pa ss en ge rs , su ch as t he fare an d t he da te of d ep artur e.” Id . at 4 6. W it h Wall is an d S pa ta ro as o urgu id e, we co nc lu de th atth e p hysic al ch arac te ris ti cs of t he warn in g i n t hi s ca se were s uf fic ie ntto reas on ab ly co m m un ic at e th e fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e to th e Myhras . The t erm is pri nt edina typefa ce an d i nc lu de d wi th in a se ct io n s im il ar t o t ha t wh ic h a t l eas t two o th er fed eral ap pe ll at e co urts ha ve ap pr ov ed . Alth ou gh th e te rm ap pe ars 13 1 p ag es in to th e Ro y al Cari bb ean bro ch ur e, th e te rm s an d c on di ti on s s ect io n i ts el f, of whi ch th e cl au se is a pa rt, app ears to be on ly fou r pa ge s, an d i t wo ul d b e in accu rat e to ch arac te riz e th is term

as s om eh ow “ bu rie d” withi n t ha t s ect io n; itcanbe fou nd un de r a cl ear h ead in g, s urro un de d b y rel at edhe ad in gs , anditap pe ars inid en ti cal typefa ce an d s iz e to all of t he ot he r te rm s an d c on di ti on s. W it h re sp ectto whet he r th e Myhras “ ha d t he ab il it y to be co m e m ean in gf

ul ly in fo rm edof t he claus e an d t o re ject i ts term s,” Kre nk el , 57 9 F .3dat 1 28 1, we si m il arl y fin d n o d iff

ic ul ty here. Onfiv e se pa rat e o ccas io ns , in vo ic es were s en t t o

27 Case: 10-15840 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 27 of 29th e Myhras co nt ai ni ng a no ti ce ab ou t the bi nd in g t erm s an d c on di ti on s an d

di rect in g t he Myhr as to wher e th os e te rm s an d c on di ti on s co ul d b e fo un d. Onan ad di ti on al oc cas io n, a s im il ar n ot ic e was pl acedun de r anall -cap it al he ad li ne on th e v ery fir stpa ge of alar ge tra ve l p ack et , ahe adof v irtua ll y all othe r in fo rm at io n pr ov id edab ou t the cru is e, ag ai n d ire ct in g t he Myhr as ’ atte nt io n t o t he term s an d co nd it io ns . Furt he rm or e, th e te rm is cle ar o n i ts face , di rect in g l it ig at io n un am bi gu ou sl y to th e co urts of En gl an d a ndW al es . In a dd it io n, the factth atth e 4 1 cl au se was i nc lu de d u nd er a p la in he ad in g re gard in g the pro ces s fo r ha nd li ng all
m an ne r of

“ co m pl ai nt s” su gg es ts th atitwas wri tt ento be un de rs to odby the av erag e p as se ng er. 4 2 Und er the se cir cu m st an ces , we con cl ud e th atth e te rm s wer e su ffi ci en tl y co m m un ic at edto th e Myhras to pre cl ud e an y cla im th atth ey were ac hi ev edby ov erre ach in g o n t he pa rt o f Ro y al Cari bb ean .

Cf. Wallis v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 306 F .3d 827, 836-37 (9th Cir. 2002) (holdingthat 4 1 a limitation on li ability

had not bee n rea sonably

communicated to the pa sseng ers by way of a blanket re fer ence to the applicability of the Athe ns Convention as opposed to a more prec ise statement of the a

pplicable moneta

ry limit ). We note that whether

the My hras c hose to ava il themselves of the notice s and to rea d 4 2 the terms and c onditions i s not releva nt to the rea sonable c ommunicativeness inquiry . See Kre nkel v. Kerzner Int’l Hotels Ltd., 579 F.3d 1279, 1282 (11th Cir. 2009) (per c uriam) (noting that, had the plaintiffs r ead the terms as the doc ument direc ted them to do, their misapprehe nsions about its applicability would have be en re solved). 28 Case: 10-15840 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 28 of 29Con cl us io n

Pl ai nt iff s s eek in g t o i nv al id at e fo rum -s el ect io n c laus es inco ntract s h av e a he av y bu rd ento de m on st rat e u ne nf or ceab il it y . In the pre se ntcas e, th e Est at e can no t s uc ceedwith the arg um en ts itha s p utforth . W e h ol d t ha t 4 6 U.S.C. § 3 05 09 (a) d oe s n otba r a s hi p o wne r fro m in cl ud in g aforum -s el ect io n c laus e in a pa ss ag e co nt ract , eve n i f th e ch os enforum m ig htap pl y

subs tant iv e la w th atwou ld im po se a li m it at io n o n l iabi li ty. W e furth er h ol d t ha t, u nd er the parti cu la r ci rcu m st an ces setforthin th e rec or d b efo re u s, the forum -s el ect io n c laus e was reas on ab ly comm

un ic at edto th e Myhras an d, the refo re, can no t b e in va li da te d a s ha vi ng be enach ie ve d b y

ov erre ach in g o n t he pa rt o f Ro y al Cari bb ean . W e th eref or e aff irm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt d is m is si ng th e cas e. AFFIRMED.

29 Case: 10-15840 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 29 of 29