Costa Cruise Line Motion For Reconsideration Of Denial Of Motion To Dismiss Based On Forum Non Convenience Was Denied As Costa Was Owned By Carnival Corp. Which Had It Base Ofoperations In The United States
ENRIQUE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, vs. CRUISE SHIPS CATERING ANDSERVICE INTERNATIONAL, N.V.; PRESTIGE CRUISES N.V.; and COSTA CROCIERE, SPA,Defendants.
Case No. 03-60158-CIV-GOLD/SIMONTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OFFLORIDA
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7586; 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 595
March 31, 2004, Decided
March 31, 2004, Filed
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff, a Costa Rican citizen and injured employee, sued defendants, including a vessel's owner, for injuries suffered working aboard an Italian-flagged vessel. He alleged claims under the Jones Act, and claims for unseaworthiness, failure to cure, and failure to treat. Pending was defendants' motions for reconsideration.
OVERVIEW: The motion for reconsideration pertained to the court's order denying defendants' motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds. The court earlier denied the dismissal motion primarily due to its conclusion that defendants' base of operations was in the United States. It examined the motion for reconsideration under both Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b). Based on defendants' arguments, the court examined the motion under these Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b) standards: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, or the need to correct clear error, and (2) new evidence. Regarding the first standard, none of defendants' three grounds warranted reconsideration. As for newly discovered evidence, a review of the entire record simply strengthened the court's conclusion that defendants' base of operations was in the United States. Even upon consideration of new filings, reconsideration was not warranted. The case involved a controlling question of law, i.e., whether the United States could be considered the base of operations for a shipowner that was owned by a company that primarily conducted its business in the United States. The case was appropriate for certification.
OUTCOME: Defendants' motions for reconsideration were denied.
