Case Name: James MARRINAN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CARNIVAL CORP., doing business as Carnival Cruise Lines Inc; Cruise Ship Celebration, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-17
Citations: 324 F. App'x 327
Docket Number: No. 08-40964
Parties: James MARRINAN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CARNIVAL CORP., doing business as Carnival Cruise Lines Inc; Cruise Ship Celebration, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 324
Pages: 327–328

Head Matter:
James MARRINAN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CARNIVAL CORP., doing business as Carnival Cruise Lines Inc; Cruise Ship Celebration, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-40964
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 17, 2009.
John E. Collins, Burleson, Pate & Gibson, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
John Michael Cox, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
Before REAVLEY, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The judgment of the district court is affirmed for these reasons:
1. The contract between the parties was the document given to plaintiff at the boarding of the ship. By-signing it, he acknowledged receipt and agreed to its terms. That document included the provision that no claim for personal injury could be made unless filed within one year after the date of the injury. Plaintiff alleges an injury on July 17, 2004 but did not file suit until May 30, 2006.
2. Plaintiff took and retained possession of the contract, receiving ample notice of the limitation period. There is no issue of unfairness by the defendant. See Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 595, 111 S.Ct. 1522, 113 L.Ed.2d 622 (1991).
3. Whatever complaint plaintiff has for any problem with regaining the deposit before -boarding and signing the contract is immaterial to the contractual limitation after it was accepted.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.