NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

_______________ 

No. 15-1965 

_______________ 

JACQUELINE VEVERKA, 

 Appellant 

v. 

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD 

_________________________________________ 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of New Jersey 

(D.C. Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-03070) 

District Judge: Esther Salas 

_________________________________________ 

Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

on April 5, 2016 

Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE, Circuit Judges, and THOMPSON,* District Judge

(Opinion filed: May 13, 2016) 

__________________ 

OPINION**

__________________

* The Honorable Anne E. Thompson, Senior District Judge for the United States

District Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation. 

** This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 

does not constitute binding precedent. 
2 

KRAUSE, Circuit Judge. 

 Jacqueline Veverka appeals a District Court order granting summary judgment in 

favor of Royal Caribbean Cruises on all five of her claims for an injury she sustained 

while onboard one of Royal Caribbean’s cruise ships. For the reasons set forth below, we 

will affirm. 

I. Background 

 Because we write primarily for the parties, we provide background only as 

relevant to the issues on appeal. On May 22, 2010, Veverka boarded a Royal Caribbean 

cruise ship for a trip to Bermuda. The following day, while en route to Bermuda, she 

slipped on a puddle of water on the ship’s deck and broke her hip. She was admitted to 

the ship’s infirmary until the ship docked the following morning, after which she was 

transferred to King Edward Hospital in Bermuda. That same day, at her own request and 

against the advice of her surgeon, she was flown to a hospital in New Jersey for hip 

replacement surgery. 

 Veverka’s cruise was booked by her oldest daughter.1

 A Royal Caribbean 

employee named David Banciella testified in an affidavit that Royal Caribbean’s tickets – 

Veverka’s included – include a terms and conditions section, which limits the time for 

filing a personal injury lawsuit to one year: 

TIME LIMITS FOR PERSONAL INJURY/ILLNESS/DEATH CLAIMS: 

NO SUIT SHALL BE MAINTAINABLE AGAINST CARRIER, THE 

 1

 Veverka testified that her daughter planned the cruise and purchased her ticket. 

Veverka then reimbursed her. 
3 

VESSEL OR THE TRANSPORT FOR PERSONAL INJURY, ILLNESS 

OR DEATH OF ANY PASSENGER UNLESS WRITTEN NOTICE OF 

THE CLAIM, WITH FULL PARTICULARS, SHALL BE DELIVERED 

TO CARRIER AT ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE WITHIN SIX (6) MONTHS 

FROM THE DATE OF THE INJURY, ILLNESS OR DEATH AND SUIT 

IS COMMENCED (FILED) WITHIN ONE (1) YEAR FROM THE DATE 

OF SUCH INJURY, ILLNESS OR DEATH AND PROCESS SERVED 

WITHIN 120 DAYS AFTER FILING, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY 

PROVISION OF LAW OF ANY STATE OR COUNTRY TO THE 

CONTRARY. 

App. 148. Biancella also testified that the first page of Royal Caribbean’s tickets notify 

passengers to “READ ALL TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT, PAYING PARTICULAR 

ATTENTION TO SECTION 3 AND SECTIONS 9 THROUGH 11, WHICH LIMIT 

OUR LIABILITY AND YOUR RIGHT TO SUE.” App. 148. Biancella’s affidavit 

stated, “[p]rior to embarkation, each passenger is required to sign the portion of her 

Ticket Acknowledgment Card in the space provided. The passenger hands this document 

to the embarkation staff at the pier prior to boarding the vessel.” App. 149. Biancella 

testified that Royal Caribbean sent Veverka her ticket, including the terms and conditions 

section cited above, prior to her cruise. In her deposition, Veverka testified that she does 

not recall if she ever received a cruise ticket and that her “oldest daughter planned 

everything.” App. 201, 206. 

 On May 24, 2012, Veverka filed a civil action against Royal Caribbean in the 

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, a full two years after her 

injury. She brought claims for negligence, breach of contract, tortious interference with 

contractual relations, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the New 
4 

Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA). After discovery, Royal Caribbean filed a motion 

for summary judgment, which the District Court granted. The Court entered judgment on 

Veverka’s negligence and breach of contract claims for untimeliness under the cruise 

ticket’s statute of limitations clause. It entered judgment on the NJCFA and breach-ofgood-faith claims for failure to demonstrate unlawful conduct and bad faith, respectively. 

Finally, it granted judgment on the tortious interference claim for failure to demonstrate 

that Royal Caribbean had knowledge of Veverka’s insurance agreement with Medicare. 

II. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review 

 The District Court had jurisdiction to hear this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and 

we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

 We exercise de novo review over the District Court’s grant of summary judgment, 

employing the same standard as the District Court. DeHart v. Horn, 390 F.3d 262, 267 

(3d Cir. 2004). “Summary judgment is appropriate ‘if the pleadings, depositions, 

answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, 

show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is 

entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). “We 

review a district court’s discovery order[] for abuse of discretion, and will not disturb 

such an order absent a showing of actual and substantial prejudice.” Anderson v. 

Wachovia Mortg. Corp., 621 F.3d 261, 281 (3d Cir. 2010). 
5 

III. Discussion 

 Veverka claims five errors on appeal: (1) the Biancella affidavit should have been 

excluded for failure to comply with the self-executing disclosure requirements of Federal 

Rule 26; (2) Royal Caribbean’s statute of limitations defense should have been denied as 

waived; (3) the record contains disputes of material fact, which preclude summary 

judgment; (4) the District Court failed to give Veverka notice before sua sponte

dismissing her breach of contract claim; and (5) the District Court misconstrued her 

NJCFA claim by failing to consider whether she was entitled to relief for being “forcibly 

disembarked” from the cruise ship. None of these arguments is meritorious. 

Accordingly, we will affirm. 

A. Affidavit of David Biancella 

 Veverka first argues that the affidavit of David Biancella should have been 

excluded at summary judgment because Royal Caribbean failed to disclose Biancella in 

its self-executing disclosures. Federal Rule 26 requires litigants to disclose the names of 

individuals “likely to have discoverable information . . . that the disclosing party may use 

to support its claims or defenses.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i). Rule 26 disclosures are 

self-executing, meaning they must be exchanged as a matter of course “without awaiting 

a discovery request.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A). Additionally, Rule 26 requires 

supplementation of disclosures unless the information has “otherwise been made known 

to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 
6 

26(e)(1)(A). A witness that was not disclosed under Rule 26 may be excluded “unless 

the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). 

 The District Court held that Biancella “was clearly ‘made known’ to [Veverka] 

within the meaning of Rule 26” because Royal Caribbean had filed a nearly identical 

affidavit by Biancella in support of its motion to transfer venue almost two years before 

summary judgment. Veverka, 2015 WL 1270139, at *3 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26). We 

perceive no abuse of discretion in this ruling and will affirm the District Court’s decision. 

Newman v. GHS Osteopathic, Inc., 60 F.3d 153, 156 (3d Cir. 1995) (applying abuse-ofdiscretion review to district court’s decision not to exclude testimony for failure to 

comply with Rule 26’s self-executing disclosure requirement). 

B. Statute of Limitations Defense 

 Veverka next argues that Royal Caribbean waived its limitations defense by 

failing to raise it in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and failing to plead it as a Rule 8(c) 

affirmative defense. Royal Caribbean responds by pointing out that Veverka raised this 

issue for the first time on appeal, so we should not consider it. 

 We have “consistently held that [we] will not consider issues that are raised for the 

first time on appeal.” Harris v. City of Phila., 35 F.3d 840, 845 (3d Cir. 1994). This rule 

is discretionary and “may be relaxed whenever the public interest or justice so warrants.” 

Tri-M Grp., LLC v. Sharp, 638 F.3d 406, 416 (3d Cir. 2011) (deciding issue raised for 

first time on appeal that “calls into doubt the constitutionality of [a state’s] regulatory 

scheme”) (quoting Franki Found. Co. v. Alger-Rau & Assoc., Inc., 513 F.2d 581, 586 (3d 
7 

Cir. 1975)). A review of the District Court record demonstrates that Veverka never 

raised the waiver issue she now presses on appeal. Furthermore, Veverka has not 

identified any public interest or explained why justice would warrant relaxing the rule in 

this case.2

 Accordingly, Veverka waived her waiver argument by failing to raise it 

below. 

C. Factual Disputes in the Record 

 Veverka contends that there are several factual disputes in the record that preclude 

summary judgment. As a preliminary matter, however, she objects to the statement of 

undisputed facts that Royal Caribbean filed in support of its motion on the ground that 

the statement did not comply with the District Court’s Local Rule 56.1. 

 2

 It does not appear that Veverka’s waiver argument would succeed in any event. 

She first argues that Royal Caribbean’s limitations defense was waived under Federal 

Rule 12(h), which provides that a party waives a Rule 12 defense by “omitting it from a 

motion in the circumstances described in Rule 12(g)(2).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h). Rule 

12(g)(2) states, “a party that makes a motion [to dismiss] under this rule must not make 

another motion under this rule raising a defense or objection that was available to the 

party but omitted from its earlier motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(2). By its own terms, 

Rule 12’s waiver provision applies only to defenses raised under Rule 12. In contrast, 

Royal Caribbean raised its limitations defense in a Rule 56 motion for summary 

judgment. Therefore, Veverka’s argument is misplaced. 

 Alternatively, Veverka argues that Royal Caribbean waived its defense by failing 

to plead it as an affirmative defense in its answer. Federal Rule 8(c) provides, “[i]n 

responding to a pleading, a party must affirmatively state any avoidance or affirmative 

defense, including . . . statute of limitations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c). A review of Royal 

Caribbean’s answer reveals that its sixth affirmative defense “claim[ed] all rights, 

immunities, exonerations and limitations of liability provided in the terms and conditions 

of the cruise ticket.” App. 60. Accordingly, Royal Caribbean did plead the limitations 

clause as an affirmative defense even if not with particularity. 
8 

 Local Rule 56.1 provides: 

On motions for summary judgment, the movant shall furnish a statement 

which sets forth material facts as to which there does not exist a genuine 

issue, in separately numbered paragraphs citing to the affidavits and other 

documents submitted in support of the motion. A motion for summary 

judgment unaccompanied by a statement of material facts not in dispute 

shall be dismissed. 

D.N.J. Civ. R. 56.1(a). 

 Veverka’s compliance argument is puzzling because Royal Caribbean’s statement 

sets forth the facts necessary to decide its summary judgment motion, complete with 

numbered paragraphs and citations to the record. But even if Royal Caribbean did not 

comply with Rule 56.1, the District Court’s decision did not constitute reversible error. 

We have held that district courts have substantial discretion to depart from their local 

rules “where (1) [they] ha[ve] a sound rationale for doing so, and (2) so doing does not 

unfairly prejudice a party who has relied on the local rule to his detriment.” United 

States v. Eleven Vehicles, 200 F.3d 203, 215 (3d Cir. 2000). The District Court explained 

its rationale for excusing any technical error in Royal Caribbean’s statement of fact, 

explaining that its statement sufficiently narrowed the record such that the “Court [was] 

able to adjudicate the motion without the need for a factual scavenger hunt.” App. 9. 

Moreover, Veverka has not pointed to any unfair prejudice she suffered from the District 

Court’s decision. Accordingly, we perceive no abuse of discretion. 3 

 3

 Veverka also argues that Royal Caribbean never responded to her supplemental 

statement of fact and that, pursuant to Rule 56.1, her supplemental facts should have been 

deemed admitted. Rule 56.1 provides, in relevant part, “[T]he [nonmoving party] may 
9 

 Veverka argues that the record contains two disputes of material fact: (1) whether 

she received a ticket from Royal Caribbean, which is relevant to whether Veverka is 

bound by the limitations clause of the ticket agreement, and (2) whether Royal Caribbean 

had knowledge of her insurance agreement with Medicare, which is relevant to her 

tortious interference claim. We will address both arguments. 

 We have previously held that a passenger is bound by a contractual limitations 

clause in a cruise ticket if the clause language is reasonably communicated to the 

passenger. Marek v. Marpan Two, Inc., 817 F.2d 242, 245 (3d Cir. 1987). A passenger 

who has possession of a cruise ticket is charged with knowledge of the terms of the 

ticket, even if she has not read them. Id. at 247. 

 Here, Mr. Biancella testified that Royal Caribbean sent Veverka a ticket, which 

included the terms of the limitations clause. Veverka denies receiving a ticket and points 

to her deposition testimony in support. But her testimony reveals that she never denied 

receiving a ticket; rather, she testified that she did not remember receiving a ticket. 

Moreover, the Biancella affidavit states that passengers must sign the acknowledgement 

form portion of the cruise ticket before boarding, indicating that Veverka could not have 

 

also furnish a supplemental statement of disputed material facts . . . if necessary to 

substantiate the factual basis for opposition. The movant shall respond to any such 

supplemental statement of disputed material facts as above, with its reply papers.” But 

the District Court did “deem [Veverka’s supplemental facts] undisputed for purposes of 

[the summary judgment] motion” in light of Royal Caribbean’s failure to respond. 

Veverka v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 12-cv-3070, 2015 WL 1270139, *1 n.1 

(Mar. 18, 2015). Accordingly, the District Court followed the express language of Rule 

56.1. 
10 

boarded without acknowledging receipt of her ticket. Veverka testified that her daughter 

handled all aspects of booking the cruise, but she admitted that she received some 

paperwork regarding the cruise before boarding. Moreover, even if Veverka’s daughter 

had possession of her ticket at all times, Veverka is still charged with constructive notice 

of its terms. Marek, 817 F.2d at 247 (concluding that a “[friend’s] possession of [a 

ticket] is sufficient to charge [litigant] with notice of its provisions”). Accordingly, there 

is no dispute of material fact concerning the application of the limitations clause, and we 

will affirm the District Court judgment that Veverka’s negligence and breach of contract 

claims are untimely. 

 Veverka next argues that there is a dispute of fact as to her tortious interference 

claim, specifically whether Royal Caribbean had knowledge of her contract with 

Medicare. To prove tortious interference under New Jersey law,4

 a litigant must 

demonstrate: “(1) actual interference with a contract; (2) that the interference was 

inflicted intentionally by a defendant who is not a party to the contract; (3) that the 

interference was without justification; and (4) that the interference caused damage.” 

Dello Russo v. Nagel, 817 A.2d 426, 434 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2003); see also 

Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elec. Corp., 563 A.2d 31, 37 (N.J. 1989) (discussing 

elements of claim for tortious interference in context of prospective economic 

relationship). 

 4

 Neither party on appeal disputes the District Court’s reliance on the law of New 

Jersey as the proper choice of law for this claim. 
11 

 Veverka’s complaint is vague in the details of her tortious interference claim. Her 

summary judgment brief explains: “Plaintiff is required under the MMSEA Extension 

Act of 2007 (Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP) to reimburse Medicare for the medical 

expenses incurred. Defendant is tortuously [sic] interfering with Plaintiff’s contractual 

relationship with Medicare by refusing to remit reimbursement of the medical treatment 

provided and paid for by Medicare.” App. 179-180. The District Court granted summary 

judgment in Royal Caribbean’s favor, finding that Veverka failed to point to any record 

evidence supporting the allegation that Royal Caribbean knew about a contract between 

Veverka and Medicare. 2015 WL 1270139, at *11. 

 Without proof of knowledge, there can be no intent to interfere with a contract. A 

review of Veverka’s statement in opposition to summary judgment shows that she did not 

identify any record evidence supporting Royal Caribbean’s knowledge of a contract. 

Instead, she cited to paragraph 18 of her amended complaint, which states, “Defendant 

failed to comply with an agreement for goods and services and failed to fulfill such 

agreement causing the Plaintiff economic and other forms of damages. Further, 

Defendant interfered with the Plaintiff’s third party contract for medical services and 

care.” App. 185. But at summary judgment, Veverka must “cit[e] to particular parts of 

materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored 

information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations . . . , admissions, interrogatory 

answers, or other materials.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). A nonmoving party cannot create 

a genuine issue of fact by citing the pleadings. Orsatti v. N. J. State Police, 71 F.3d 480, 
12 

484 (3d Cir. 1995) (“[A] plaintiff cannot resist a properly supported motion for summary 

judgment merely by restating the allegations of his complaint, but must point to concrete 

evidence in the record that supports each and every essential element of his case.”). 

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment on 

Veverka’s tortious interference claim. 

D. Breach-of-Contract Claim 

 Veverka next argues that the District Court committed error by entering judgment 

sua sponte on her breach-of-contract claim without giving her notice that her claim was 

subject to dismissal. She further argues that she was prejudiced because breach of 

contract “involves highly fact-specific inquiries, and there is no indication that the factual 

record was fully developed.” Appellant’s Br. 25. 

 Contrary to Veverka’s assertion, the District Court’s decision was not sua sponte. 

Royal Caribbean’s motion for summary judgment was unequivocal. It sought judgment 

on all counts of the amended complaint and thoroughly briefed the statute of limitations 

issue which formed the basis of the District Court’s judgment on that claim. Veverka’s 

own briefing contradicts her position because it addressed Royal Caribbean’s statute of 

limitations argument as well as the merits of her breach of contract claim. Accordingly, 

the District Court’s entry of judgment was not sua sponte. 

 Veverka’s prejudice argument is equally meritless. The District Court record 

shows that discovery was concluded by the time Royal Caribbean moved for summary 

judgment. If Veverka believed that further discovery was necessary, she could have filed 
13 

an affidavit or declaration under Rule 56(d) requesting further discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(d) (allowing a court to defer consideration of a motion for summary judgment and 

order discovery if nonmovant is unable to present facts in opposition to summary 

judgment). Having failed to make such a request, Veverka cannot now claim prejudice 

on appeal. 

E. New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act Claim 

The District Court construed Veverka’s NJCFA claim to base liability on Royal 

Caribbean “failing to maintain a safe environment on the ship,” “fail[ing] to provide 

reimbursement for cruise expenses,” and “by providing [poor] medical treatment to 

[Veverka and] by failing to reimburse her for medical expenses.” 2015 WL 1270139, at 

*8-9. Veverka now argues that the District Court erred because she seeks damages based 

on Royal Caribbean’s conduct in “forcibly remov[ing her] (against her will) from the 

[ship], not because she voluntarily left the vessel.” Appellant’s Br. 21. 

 Veverka’s position is not supported by the record. Veverka testified that she was 

“taken off [the ship] and put in an ambulance” to King Edward Hospital in Bermuda. 

App. 235. Upon receiving a diagnosis at King Edward, Veverka requested a Medivac to 

New Jersey, in part because Medicare did not cover treatment in Bermuda and in part 

because she “[did not] want to be operated on so far from home.” App. 237. Veverka 

has pointed to no evidence supporting her assertion that Royal Caribbean forcibly 

removed her from the ship. Rather, her transfer to King Edward Hospital and her 

subsequent decision to fly back to New Jersey to undergo surgery were simply 
14 

consequences of her unfortunate injuries. Accordingly, we will affirm the District 

Court’s entry of judgment on Veverka’s NJCFA claim. 

IV. Conclusion 

 For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.