FORUM SHOPPING NO MORE: SUFFICIENT ADMIRALTY FACTS YIELDS ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION DESPITE CONTRARY DESIGNATIONS.
Siliakus v. Carnival Corp., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 24481, 2020 WL 4464366 (11th Cir. Aug. 4, 2020).
By: Dylan Hoke
On appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the Eleventh Circuit relied on its previous ruling in Deroy v. Carnival Corp.[1] to grant admiralty jurisdiction despite the plaintiff’s classifications otherwise.
The Plaintiff, while on a multi-day Carnival Cruise, slipped on wet steps on board the vessel and suffered a severe injury.[2] He sued Carnival in both state and federal court claiming common law negligence under Florida law. In an attempt to avoid the forum selection clause, which required all suits to be litigated in federal court unless the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiff affirmatively argued that the district court lacked admiralty jurisdiction because he brought his action “at law for damages” and “sued Carnival in personam for its negligence.”[3] The district court agreed, and with no other source of subject matter jurisdiction, dismissed the case.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit thought otherwise. In its prior decision in Deroy v. Carnival Corp, the Eleventh Circuit specifically ruled against this forum shopping method.[4] There, the circuit court stated that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(h) provides that a claim “cognizable only in admiralty or maritime jurisdiction is an admiralty or maritime claim for those purposes, whether or not so designated” and there is no need to defer to a plaintiff’s designations.[5] Therefore, when a plaintiff voluntarily files in federal court and alleges facts sufficient to satisfy admiralty jurisdiction, the district court has subject matter jurisdiction and rule 9(h) makes the plaintiff’s formal designations irrelevant.
In the instant case, the Eleventh Circuit again ruled against this type of forum shopping. It reversed and remanded the district court’s dismissal, claiming it makes no difference that Plaintiff categorized his claim as being brought at law and in personam as falling on wet stairs while aboard a vessel is “sufficient to allow for admiralty jurisdiction.”[6] Therefore, because Plaintiff filed in federal court and alleged sufficient admiralty facts, admiralty jurisdiction was proper, regardless of the labels he used.
[1] 963 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2020)
[2] Siliakus v. Carnival Corp., 2020 WL 4464366 (11th Cir. Aug. 4, 2020).
[3] Id.
[4] DeRoy v. Carnival Corp., 963 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2020).
[5] Id. at 1312 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(h)(1)).
[6] Siliakus, 2020 WL 4464366, at *2
