Case 1:12-cv-22000-PAS Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2013 Page 1 of 8

UN ITED STA TES DISTR IC T C O U R T SO U TH ERN DISTRIC T O F FLO R IDA CASE NO.12-22000-ClV-SEITZ/SIM ONTON RO YA L CA RIBBEA N CRU ISES,LTD ., asownerofthe Ocean Pro 31vesselbearing HullIdentification No.CNXO0014A303 for Exoneration from orLim itation ofLiability,

Petitioner/counter-Respondent, VS.

DARREN JACKSON and SU SAN M OM VEC, Respondents/counter-claim r ts/Third-pady Plaintiffs, VS.

NINO ABARQUEZ andM M ON MUSNGI, Third-partyDefendants. /

OR DER GRANTING M OTIONS TO O UASH THIS M ATTER isbeforethe Courton Third-party DefendantNino Abarquez'sM otion

toQuash ServiceandM otiontoDismiss(DE-32jandThird-partyDefendantRamonM usngi's M otiontoQuashServiceandM otiontoDismiss(DE-33j,1DarrenJacksonand SusanM oravec's responses(DE-40,41,42,43,44& 45j2andThird-partyDefendants'replies(DE-46,47,48,49, 50& 51J.RoyalCaribbeanCruises,Ltd.(RCCL)filedthisactionforexoneration orlimitation ofliabilityafterRespondentsDarrenJacksonandSusanM oravecwereinjuredin aparasailing l'rhe M otions are virtually identical. zD arren Jackson and Susan M oravec filed three responses to each m otion. This isa blatantattem ptto circum ventthe Court's rules regarding page lim itations. ln the future,if Darren Jackson and Susan M oravec attemptto filemultipleresponsesto asinglemotion,or otherwise circum ventpage lim itations,the Courtw illstrike the filing w ithoutleave to refle.

Case 1:12-cv-22000-PAS Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2013 Page 2 of 8

accidentwhile on an RCCL cruise.Respondentsfiled an Answer,sixteen affinnative defenses,a counterclaim againstRCCL,and athird-party complaintagainstthethird-party Defendants,Nino Abarquezand Ramon M usngi,fornegligence. Abarquez and M usngim ove to quash serviceand

todismissbasedonlackofpersonaljurisdictionandforfailingtostateacauseofactionupon which reliefcan begranted. Because Abarquezand M usngihave notbeen properly selved,the

M otionstoQuasharegrantedandtheM otionstoDismissaredeniedasmoot. 1. Factualand ProceduralBackground

OnAugust22,2012,RespondentsDarrenJacksonand SusanM oravec(Plaintiffs)filed theirAnswerand Affirmative Defenses,Counterclaim and Third-party Com plaintAgainstNino Abarquezand Ramon M usngi. The Third-party Com plaintallegesthatPlaintiffs,whileon a cruise operatedby RCCL,purchased and participated in ashoreexcursion to goparasailing.The shore excursion wasoperated by RCCL and itsemployees,includingthetwo third-party defendants,Abazquezand M usngi. W hilein tow and attached to theparasailcanopy,Plaintiffs werelowered back into the parasailvesselby Abarquez and M usngi. Atthattime,thetow line losttension and thePlaintiffsfellfrom m idairintothe ocean nearthe stern oftheparasailvessel

andwereinjured. The Returns ofService tiled forA barquez and M usngiindicate thatthey were served by

mailinga copy oftheAnswerand Affirm ative Defenses,Counterclaim and Third Pal'ty Complaintto the Secretary ofStateforFlorida.DE-25& 26. On August29,2012,the Secretary ofStateaccepted service forAbarquezand forM usngi. DE-25-1& 26-1. Plaintiffsthen sentto A barquez,in care ofRCCL in M iam i,Florida, via certified m ail,return receiptrequested,a copy

ofthe Answerand Affirm ativeDefenses,Counterclaim and Third-party Complaint;the 2

Case 1:12-cv-22000-PAS Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2013 Page 3 of 8

sum mons;andtheletterfrom the Secretary ofStateaccepting serviceofprocessto Abarquez. DE-25-2. Plaintiffsdid thesnm eforM usngi. DE-26-2. Plaintiffshave notprovided copiesof thereturn receipts. Abarquez,according to hisAffidavit,isa citizen ofthePhilippinesand doesnotm aintain aresidence in Florida.DE-32-1.Abarquezdoesnotm aintain abusinessin Florida,doesnot own property in Florida,and hasneverengaged in any substantialactivityin Florida.Id

According toAbarquez,he received acopyofaletterfrom Plaintiffs'counsel,along with the sum monsand Third-party Complaint,addressed to RCCL'Scorporateaddresson orabout September25,2012 when itwasdeliveredto him in Labadee,Haiti.I6l RCCL isnot authorized to actasAbarquez'sagentforany pum ose.Id Accordingto M usngi'sAffidavit,heisacitizen ofthePhilippinesand doesnotmaintain aresidence in Florida.DE-33-1. M usngidoesnotmaintain abusinessin Florida,doesnotown

property in Florida,and hasneverengaged in any substantialactivity in Florida.1d. According to M usngi,hereceived acopyofa letterfrom Plaintiffs'counsel,along with the sum monsand

Third-party Complaint,addressed to RCCL'Scorporateaddresson oraboutSeptem ber25,2012 when itwasdelivered to him in Labadee,Haiti.Id RCCL isnotauthorized to actasM usngi's agentforany purpose. Id

II.TheM otionstoQuash Abarquezand M usngim ove to quash servicebecausethe Third-party Complaintfailsto

pleadabasisforsubstituteservicepursuantto FloridaStatutej48.181,servicedidnotstrictly complywiththerequirementsofFloridaStatutejj48.181and48.161,serviceunderFlorida

Statutej48.181isinvalid,andserviceunderFederalRuleofCivilProcedure4(9 isinvalid,

Case 1:12-cv-22000-PAS Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2013 Page 4 of 8

PlaintiffsarguethatbecauseAbarquezandM usngiadmitin theirAffidavitsthatthey received the sum m onsand Third-party Com plaintthey have received notice and have had an opportunity

to respond. Thus,Plaintiffsm aintain thatservice should notbe quashed. However,this argumentwould mean thatservicewould neverbequashed whenchallenged becauseaparty challenging servicehasobviously receivedthesumm onsand complaint.Plaintiffsalso argue thatthey should nothaveto personally serveAbarquez and M usngibecausethey donotreside in

the Philippinesand,insteadresidein Labadee,Haiti,which isan isolated enclavecontrolled by R CCL and which isclosed to the public.Thus,Plaintiffs'assertthatthey have no m eansof

accessto sel'veAbarquezand M usngidirectly in Haiti.Plaintiffs,however,have failed tociteto anyauthoritythatwould supportthisargum ent.Because service on Abarquez and M usngiwas invalid,them otionsto quash are granted.

W.ServicePursuanttoFloridaStatuteJ48.18lisInvalid FederalRuleofCivilProcedure4(e)states: Unlessfederallaw providesotherwise,an individual--otherthan am inor,an incompetent

person,orapersonwhosewaiverhasbeenfiled--maybeserved inajudicialdistrictof the United Statesby:

(1)followingstatelaw forservingasummonsinan actionbroughtincourtsof generaljurisdictionin thestatewherethedistrictcourtislocatedorwhereservice ismade;or

(2)doinganyofthefollowing: (A)delivering acopyofthesummonsandofthecomplainttothe individualpersonally;

(B)leavingacopyofeachattheindividual'sdwellingorusualplaceof abodewith som eoneofsuitable ageand discretion who residesthere;or

(C)deliveringacopyofeachtoanagentauthorizedbyappointmentorby law toreceiveserviceofprocess.

FloridaStatutej48.18141)states:

4

Case 1:12-cv-22000-PAS Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2013 Page 5 of 8

The acceptance by any person orpersons,individually orassociated together as a copartnership orany otherform ortype ofassociation,who areresidentsofany other stateorcountry,and allforeign com orations,and anyperson who isaresidentofthestate and who subsequently becomesa nonresidentofthe stateorconcealshisorher whereabouts,oftheprivilege extended by law to nortresidentsand othersto operate, conduct,engage in,orclrr.pon a business orbusiness venture in thestate,or to have an tl-f /iceoragency in thestate,constitutesanappointmentbythepersonsandforeign

corporations ofthe Secretary of State ofthe state astheiragenton w hom allprocess in any action orproceeding againstthem ,oranyofthem ,arising outofanytransaction or operation connected with orincidentalto the businessorbusinessventure may be served. Theacceptanceoftheprivilegeissignification oftheagreementofthepersonsand foreign corporationsthattheprocessagainstthem which isso served isofthesame validity asifserved personally on thepersonsorforeign corporations.

(emphasisadded).AbarquezandM usngiassertthatPlaintiffshavenotpled suficientfactsto supportsubstituteserviceunderj48.18141).

UnderFloridalaw,çsliln ordertosenreanonresidentpursuanttosection48.181,the complaintm ustallege specificfactswhich show thatthedefendantisconducting businessin

Florida and thatthe cause ofaction arosefrom businessactivitieswithin this state.''Newberry v.

Rfe,675So.2d684,685(F1a.2dDCA 1996)(emphasisadded).Plaintiffs'Third-party Complaintallegesthat:çl-l-hird-party DefendantsNiso AbarquezandRam on M usngiarebelieved

tobeagsicjnon-residentoftheStateofFloridawho is(sic)employedbyFloridabasedRoyal

Caribbean CruisesLtd.,andwhohas(sicjengaged insubstantialactivitywithinthisstate.'' Theseallegationsareinsufficientto supportsubstitutedserviceunderj48.181becausetheylack specificfactswhich show thatA barquezand M usngiareconducting businessin Florida.

Fukhennore,theThird-partyComplaintallegesthatPlaintiffs'injuriesresulted from a parasailing accidentin Labadee,Haiti.Thus,theircauseofaction did notarise from Abarquez and M usngi'sbusinessactivitieswithin Florida.W hilePlaintiffsm aintain thatby virtueoftheir employmentby RCCL Abarquez and M usngiareengaging in businessin Florida,Plaintiffshave

Case 1:12-cv-22000-PAS Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2013 Page 6 of 8

notshown,nor can they,thatthe cause ofaction arose from businessactivities w ithin Florida.

Accordingly,servicemadepursuantto j48.181mustbequashed.3

#.ServicePursuanttoFederalRuleofcivilProcedure44/JisInvalid Abarquez and M usngialso m ove to quash service pursuantto FederalRule ofC ivil

Procedure449,which states: Unlessfederallaw providesotherwise,an individual--otherthan am inor,an incompetent person,oraperson whosewaiverhasbeen filed--may be served ataplace notwithin any

judicialdistrictoftheUnitedStates: (1)byanyintem ationallyagreedmeansofservicethatisreasonablycalculatedto givenotice,such asthoseauthorized by theHague Convention on the Service

AbroadofJudicialandExtrajudicialDocuments; (2)ifthereisno internationallyagreedmeans,orifaninternationalagreement allowsbutdoesnotspecify otherm eans,by am ethod thatisreasonably calculated to give notice:

(A)asprescribed bytheforeigncountry's1aw forserviceinthatcountryin an action initscourtsofgeneraljurisdiction; (B)astheforeignauthoritydirectsin responsetoaletterrogatoryorletterof request;or

(C)unlessprohibitedbytheforeign country'slaw,by: (i)deliveringacopyofthesummonsandofthecomplainttothe individualpersonally;or

(ii)usinganyform ofmailthattheclerkaddressesand sendstothe individualand thatrequiresa signed receipt;or

(3)byothermeansnotprohibitedbyinternationalagreement,asthecourtorders. Abarquez and M usngiassertthatitappearsthatPlaintiffsmay haveattempted to sel'veAbarquez

andM usngiunderRule4(9(2)(C)(ii).However,theattemptedservicedidnotcomplywiththe requirementsoftheRulebecausethe Clerk did notaddressthelettersto Abarquez and M usngi

3Abarquez and M usngialso seek to quash service based on Plaintiffs'failureto strictly

complywiththerequirementsofserviceunderj48.181,which aresetoutin FloridaStatutesj 48.161. However,because Plaintiffshavenotalleged sufficientfactsto supportsubstituted service,theCourtneed notaddresstheseargum ents.

Case 1:12-cv-22000-PAS Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2013 Page 7 of 8

and there w as no signed receiptby A barquez orM usngi. The Courtagreesthatservice of

AbarquezandM usngididnotcomplywiththerequirementsofRule4(t)(2)(C)(ii).

PlaintiffsarguethattheyhavecompliedwiththerequirementsofRule4(9(2)(C)(ii) because they mailedA barquez and M usngithesumm onsand Third-party Complaintin careof RCCL viaregistered mail,retum receiptrequested. Plaintiffsciteto JudgeKing'sdecision in

Balachanderv.NCL (Bahamas),L/J,CaseNo.11-21064(June3,2011),forthepropositionthat

thistypeofserviceisproperunderRule449.However,inBalachander,JudgeKingdidnotfind thatserviceon the defendant'semployer,NCL,wasproper,instead,he found thatservice by

mail,which invloved directlym ailing the summ onsand complaintto thedefendant'slastknown addressin thePhilippinesand requiring asignatureby therecipientwasproper. These arenot thefactshere. Thereareno allegationsordocumentsthatwould establish thatPlaintiffsmailed thesummonsandThird-party Complaintto Abarquezand M usngiattheirlastknown addresses in the Philippines.Thus,Balachanderisinapposite. In amore analogouscase,JudgeAltonaga

found thatservicewasnotproperunderRule4(9(2)(C)(ii)whenprocesswassenttothe defendant'swork place in Spain viaFederalExpressand signed forby a receptionist.Intelsat

Corp.v.M ultivîsion TVLLC,7?6F.Supp.2d 1334,1341-42(S.D.Fla.2010).JudgeAltonaga

notedthatservicewasnotproperunderRule4(t)(2)(C)(ii)becausetheClerkdid notaddressand send thedocum entsand thedeliveryreceiptwasnotsigned by the defendanthim self. ld Consequently,themotionsto quash aregranted.4

4Becauseprocessisquashed,theCourtdoesnothavejurisdictiontoreach themotionsto dismissforlackofpersonaljurisdiction orforfailureto stateacauseofadion.However,

assum ing thatPlaintiffsw illproperly serve Abarquez and M usngi,Plaintiffs should be guided by

theCourt'sOrderGrantingMotiontoDismissCounterclaim (DE-541,in whichtheCourtfound thatPlaintiffshad failed to adequately plead theirnegligence claim againstRCCL. Furthennore,

Case 1:12-cv-22000-PAS Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2013 Page 8 of 8

A ccordingly,itishereby

ORDERED thatz

1) Third-partyDefendantNinoAbarquez'sMotionto Quash ServiceandM otionto

Dismiss(DE-32)andThird-partyDefendantRamonM usngi'sM otion toQuashServiceand M otiontoDismiss(DE-33)areGM NTED inpartandDENIED inpart: a)TheM otionstoQuashareGM NTED. b)TheM otionsareDENIED in a11otherrespects. 2)Claimants'M otionstoStayRulingonPersonalJurisdictionPending90Daysof

JurisdictionalDiscovery(DE-42& 451areDENIED asmoot. >

ooxuandoposuoinviami,s-lorida,thisp dayot -sa ebruav,aol3. PATRI IA A. 1TZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc:

AllCounselofRecord

even ifthePlaintiffsareabletoproperly serveAbarquez and M usngi,itwould seem unlikely that

thisCottrtwillhavepersonaljurisdictionovereitherofthem ,giventhatitappearsthat

Abarquez'sand M usngi'sonly contactswith Floridaare thattheiremployerislocated here and the shipson which they work may sailintoM inmi,Florida.