CLASS ACTION UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AGAINST TWO MAJOR CRUISE LINES SETTLED REQUIRING THE CRUISE LINES TO MAKE MAJOR SHIPBOARD MODIFICATIONS - SETTLEMENT APPROVED BY COURT
ACCESS NOW, INC. and EDWARD RESNICK, Plaintiffs, vs. CUNARD LINE LIMITED, CO., and CARNIVAL CORPORATION, Defendants.
Case No. 00-7233-CIV-MORENO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21481; 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 33
October 31, 2001, Decided
October 31, 2001, Filed
DISPOSITION: [*1] Parties' Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement GRANTED.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: In a class action suit, plaintiff passengers filed suit against defendant ship companies pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act for lack for accessible accommodations. The parties proposed a joint settlement.
TERMS OF SETTLEMENT: This settlement requires Defendants to spend $7 million on installing fully and partially accessible cabins, accessible public restrooms, new signage, coamings, thresholds, stairs, corridors, doorways, restaurant facilities, lounges, spas and other shipboard facilities. To enforce the settlement agreement, Defendants agreed to create a fund to pay experts who will inspect the modified cruise ships. Additionally, Defendants agreed to allow Plaintiffs an opportunity to inspect the cruise ships within sixty days of the time of completion. As such, Plaintiffs have obtained much of the relief they sought in their complaint, weighing heavily in favor the settlement's approval.
OVERVIEW: Following a considerable amount of time in supervised mediation, the parties arrived at a settlement agreement, which they submitted to the court for approval. In determining the settlement agreement's fairness, the court looked at (1) the passengers' likelihood of success at trial, (2) the range of relief the passengers could obtain at trial vis-a-vis that proposed in the agreement, (3) the complexity and expense of litigation, (4) the amount of opposition, and (5) the stage of litigation in which the agreement was reached. Using these factors, the court found that the proposed settlement agreement was fair and that the settlement notice met the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P 23(e) for notice in a Fed. R. Civ. P 23(b)(1) or (2) class action.
OUTCOME: The parties' joint motion for approval of settlement agreement was granted. All pending motions were denied as moot.
