Court Opinion

ID: 9956407
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 00:00:41.419516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:16:03.198142
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60389   Document: 37-1     Page: 1    Date Filed: 04/01/2024

      United States Court of Appeals
           for the Fifth Circuit                           United States Court of Appeals
                                                                    Fifth Circuit

                         ____________                             FILED
                                                               April 1, 2024
                          No. 23-60389                       Lyle W. Cayce
                         ____________                             Clerk

John Doe #1; Jane Doe #1; Jane Doe #2; Jane Doe Minor #1,
By and Through Her Father and Next Friend John Doe #1; John
Doe Minor #2, By and Through His Father and Next Friend John
Doe #1; John Doe Minor #3, By and Through His Father and Next
Friend John Doe #1; John Doe Minor #4, By and Through His
Mother and Next Friend Jane Doe #2; John Doe Minor #5, By
and Through His Uncle and Next Friend John Doe #1,

                                                 Plaintiffs—Appellants,

                               versus

Marriott International, Incorporated; Brookfield
Hospitality Properties, L.L.C.; Island Hotel Company
Limited; Atlantis Resort Spe Limited; John Does 1-5;
John Doe Entities 1-5,

                                     Defendants—Appellees.
            ______________________________

            Appeal from the United States District Court
              for the Southern District of Mississippi
                      USDC No. 3:22-CV-468
            ______________________________

Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Graves and Wilson, Circuit
Judges.
Case: 23-60389            Document: 37-1         Page: 2      Date Filed: 04/01/2024

                                       No. 23-60389

Per Curiam:*
       Plaintiffs are John Doe #1, and other Plaintiffs who appear to be his
wife (Jane Doe #1) and children, and other family members or friends and
relatives who traveled with him to the Bahamas. Plaintiffs filed claims against
Defendants Marriott International, Inc., Brookfield Hospitality Properties,
LLC, Island Hotel Company Limited, Atlantis Resort SPE Limited (together
“Defendants”), and one Verlon Williams (“Williams”)1 in relation to an
incident that happened in the Bahamas at the Atlantis Resort. On June 17,
2021, Plaintiffs were staying at the Atlantis Resort when that morning, an
unknown assailant came onto the property and used the master key card to
enter the room occupied by John Doe #1 and Jane Doe #1. A fight ensued in
the hotel room and continued outside into the common areas of the resort.
John Doe #1 was eventually able to subdue the assailant and turn him over to
the Defendants for processing. John Doe #1 alleged that he, along with all the
other Plaintiffs, suffered injuries.
       On June 17, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in Mississippi state
court. Marriott filed a Notice of Removal to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi. The district court denied both the
Plaintiffs’ and Williams’ Motions to Remand. The court found that Williams
was improperly joined and dismissed Williams from the Complaint and
retained jurisdiction.
       On September 8, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which
the Defendants moved to strike under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a)(2). The district court granted the Motion to Strike, finding that

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
       1
           Plaintiffs state they misnamed “Verlon” as “Velmon” in the Complaint.

                                             2
Case: 23-60389         Document: 37-1       Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/01/2024

                                 No. 23-60389

Plaintiffs failed to comply with Rule 15 as the Amended Complaint was filed
seventy-one days after service and without leave of court.
       Defendants then filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that Atlantis’
Forum Selection Clause (“FSC”) mandated the case be brought in the
Bahamas. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Discovery to assess the mandatory
nature of the FSC. Finding that the FSC was mandatory and applicable to all
Plaintiffs through the closely related doctrine, the district court granted the
Defendants Motion to Dismiss and denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Discovery.
Plaintiffs appealed.
       This court has considered this appeal on the basis of the briefs and
pertinent portions of the record. Having done so, the judgment is affirmed
for the reasons stated in the district court’s detailed order dismissing
Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The district court did not err in granting Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. We AFFIRM.

                                        3