Funez v. CMI Leisure Mgmt., Inc.

482 F.Supp.3d 1252

Rosa FUNEZ, Plaintiff,

v.CMI LEISURE MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., Defendants.

CASE NO. 20-CV-21860-COOKE/GOODMAN

United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division.

Signed August 31, 2020

Robert D. Peltz, The Peltz Law Firm, Louis Anthony Vucci, Louis A. Vucci, P.A., Miami, FL, for Plaintiff.

William F. Clair, Annalisa Gutierrez, Hamilton, Miller & Birthisel, LLP, Miami, FL, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONDUCT JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY

Jonathan Goodman, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Rosa Funez filed a motion to conduct jurisdictional discovery on Defendant Institute for Shipboard Education, Inc. ("ISE"). [ECF No. 31]. Defendant ISE filed a response in opposition and Plaintiff filed a reply. [ECF Nos. 37; 40]. United States District Judge Marcia G. Cooke referred the motion to the Undersigned. [ECF No. 41]. For the reasons discussed below, the Undersigned grants Plaintiff's motion to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery on ISE.

I. Background

Plaintiff filed suit against CMI Leisure Management, Inc. (a Florida corporation), CMI Leisure, Ltd. (a Bahamian company), and ISE (a corporation headquartered in Colorado). [ECF No. 34]. Plaintiff alleges that she suffered injuries while she was a crewmember aboard the M/V World Odyssey (which is part of a semester at sea program). Specifically, she states that she was injured when she was forced to carry heavy loads of laundry up the stairs because the elevator was broken. According to Plaintiff, her "sole claim against IFSE ... is limited to its status as the owner of the vessel, is based on unseaworthiness arising from the malfunctioning elevator, which was not repaired for at least two weeks." [ECF Nos. 31, p. 3; 34, pp. 22-23].

Plaintiff alleges that there is personal jurisdiction over ISE under Florida's long arm statute, Florida Statute § 48.193(1)(a). [ECF No. 34, pp. 22-23]. Section 48.193 provides the following:

(1)(a) A person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who personally or through an agent does any of the acts enumerated in this subsection thereby submits himself or herself and, if he or she is a natural person, his or her personal representative to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state for any cause of action arising from any of the following acts:

1. Operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business or business venture in this state or having an office or agency in this state.

...

Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a) (emphasis added).

Here, Plaintiff alleges that CMI, Inc. (a Florida corporation) is ISE's agent and has carried out sufficient activities in Florida to satisfy § 48.193(1)(a). [ECF No. 34, p. 24]. Plaintiff points to the fact that ISE, which is an education provider, is not a cruse carrier in the sense of a typical cruise line and thus it has "partnered" with CMI, Inc. to actually operate and manage its vessel out of its Miami headquarters. Id. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges in her amended complaint that:

As IFSE explains on its web page:

Semester at Sea partners with industry experts at Cruise Management International (CMI) to oversee all vessel operations, crew hiring and training, itinerary planning and implementation. Through this partnership, Semester at Sea is in compliance with all regulations set forth by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the Maritime Labor Convention, the ship's flag-state regulations and insurance provider requirements.

(emphasis added). See https://www.semesteratsea.org/safety/. In this description, there is an embedded link which opens directly to CMI, Inc.’s web page at https://www.cmishipmanagement.com/....

IFSE's above cited description on its web page of its relationship with CMI as a "partnership" to oversee and manage vessel operations is not a mere single reference, but a description that is repeated throughout its web site. In the section dealing with its strategy for managing the risks inherent in ocean travel, IFSE represents that it relies upon its "partners," who are "experts in ship-based travel [who] oversee all policies, regulations, ... trainings, ... and general vessel operations." (emphasis added). See https://www.semesteratsea.org/safety/strategies/....

Similarly, on IFSE's web page describing the vessel, under the heading "Shipboard Management," IFSE states,

ISE partners with maritime management company, Cruise Management International (CMI) and Cruise Management International Leisure (CMI-L), [to] provide the officers and crew to manage the program's vessel.

(emphasis added). See https://www.semesteratsea.org/life-at-sea/our-ship/. In this description, there are again embedded links which open directly to the web pages of both CMI Leisure Management, Inc. and Cruise Management International at https://www.cmishipmanagement.com/ and https://www.cmi-leisure.com/...

Again in its FAQ section, IFSE states

We do not hire for crew positions. We utilize the services of an international ship management company called CMI to staff our crew positions. You may visit their website (link below) if you are interested. http://www.cmishipmanagement.com/contact-us/careers.

See https://www.semesteratsea.org/employment/faq/....

The extensive nature of the activities performed on behalf of IFSE in managing and operating the M/V World Odyssey by CMI, Inc. from its headquarters in Miami is evidenced by CMI, Inc.’s web page, which states:

CMI Leisure provides turnkey management and concessions services to some of the most uniquely demanding cruise line and adventure travel companies in the world.

It then goes on to identify the MV World Odyssey as one of "our ships." See https://www.cmi-leisure.com/about-us/our-clients.

[ECF No. 34, pp. 24-28].

ISE filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the Court lacks jurisdiction over ISE because ISE did not personally engage in activities in Florida. [ECF No. 38]. ISE states that Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts to bring this action against ISE under Florida's long-arm statute. Id. at p. 1.

Accordingly, Plaintiff has filed this motion to conduct jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiff states that, without discovery, she cannot determine whether the relationship between ISE and CMI is a formal legal partnership or a less-formal agency relationship. Further, she states that she needs limited discovery to flesh out CMI's role in carrying out the activities described in ISE's webpage, including the nature, scope, and purpose of these activities and their relationship to Plaintiff's injuries.

ISE's response in opposition argues that Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged general jurisdiction over ISE. [ECF No. 37, p. 2]. Further, with regard to specific jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute, ISE argues that (as its forthcoming motion to dismiss will show) it is not in a partnership with CMI such that the Court has specific jurisdiction over it. Id. at p. 7. Further, ISE argues that "because ISE was not conducting business in Florida through CMI or Vikand, it cannot be reasonably expected to be hailed into court in Florida." Id. at p. 8.

II. Analysis

"The right to jurisdictional discovery is a qualified one, available when a court's jurisdiction is genuinely in dispute." Wolf v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc. , 683 F. App'x 786, 792 (11th Cir. 2017) (...