Gonzalez v. Carnival Corporation

Background

Miguel Gonzalez and Carla Gonzalez sued Carnival Corporation, Carnival PLC, and Princess Cruise Lines, LTD d/b/a Princess Cruises. They alleged that Lucio Gonzalez, the decedent, contracted COVID-19 aboard one of the defendants’ cruise ships and later died. The plaintiffs, who lived with the decedent, alleged that they were exposed to and contracted the virus from him. Their claims were for negligence and gross negligence based on the defendants’ alleged failure to take specified precautions.

The plaintiffs originally filed the case in the Superior Court of California for Marin County. The defendants removed it to the Northern District of California, asserting that the federal court had original jurisdiction over maritime cases. The plaintiffs moved to remand, meaning they asked the federal court to return the case to state court. The defendants also moved to transfer the case to the Central District of California.

Forum-Selection Clause

The decedent’s Passage Contract contained a forum-selection clause requiring claims involving emotional harm, bodily injury, illness, or death of a guest to be litigated in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles, unless federal subject-matter jurisdiction was unavailable. The plaintiffs relied in part on that clause to establish personal jurisdiction over defendants that were not residents of California, while also alleging that the clause did not bind them.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs were equitably estopped, meaning they could not accept benefits from a contract provision while rejecting another provision in the same contract. The court noted that forum-selection clauses are generally enforceable unless enforcement would be unreasonable, unjust, invalid, or unfair. It also noted that a passenger-ticket clause must have been reasonably communicated and fundamentally fair. The plaintiffs did not dispute that the clause was reasonably communicated to the decedent, fundamentally fair, and otherwise valid; they argued only that it was not reasonably communicated to them.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs had relied on the forum-selection clause and sought to benefit from it to establish personal jurisdiction. It found that this was more than an indirect or incidental benefit and that the plaintiffs had knowingly exploited the favorable portions of the clause. The court therefore concluded that they could not avoid the clause’s forum requirement.

Removal and Transfer

The court considered the plaintiffs’ arguments concerning federal removal jurisdiction even though some arguments were raised in their reply. It held that the timing rule for certain removal defects did not prevent consideration of those arguments. The court did not need to definitively resolve the broader question whether maritime cases may be removed without an independent basis for federal jurisdiction because it enforced the forum-selection clause.

The court DENIED Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. Because the plaintiffs had represented that they would not oppose transfer if the remand motion were denied, the court GRANTED, as unopposed, Defendants’ motion to transfer the matter to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The clerk was ordered to transfer the matter and close the file. The order did not reach the merits of the plaintiffs’ negligence or gross-negligence claims.