Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Health newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360 (September 23, 2020, 7:47 PM EDT) -- A California federal court has slashed claims brought against Princess Cruise Lines by a group of passengers over its handling of COVID-19 cases aboard one of its ships, but it let stand a claim for intentionally inflicting emotional distress.
In Tuesday's order, U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner dismissed without prejudice the passengers' negligence claims on causation grounds, saying they did not establish when they started experiencing symptoms or when they tested positive for COVID-19 or antibodies of the virus. The court also said that the passengers failed to plausibly claim that Carnival Corp. is the alter ego of Princess Cruises, dismissing their negligence claims against Carnival without prejudice.
"Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that Carnival exercises total domination over Princess Cruises," Judge Klausner said, adding that the standard for piercing the corporate veil is high.
And Judge Klausner tossed the passengers' request for injunctive relief, saying they did not adequately claim an imminent threat of future injury.
But he left alone their claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, saying he cannot conclude that those allegations are legally insufficient to establish that the cruise line engaged in "extreme and outrageous conduct."
Carnival had argued that the passengers' class action allegations should be dismissed because they entered into a contract that includes a class-action waiver. But the judge said a ruling on the enforceability of that would be premature, adding that the motion for class certification is a more appropriate context in which to address that argument.
Judge Klausner also deferred ruling on the issue of punitive damages, saying it's not clear whether the passengers will renew their request for them in an amended complaint. The passengers had sought punitive damages on their gross negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, according to the order.
Counsel for all parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday.
The passengers' April suit claims that Princess and Carnival allowed more than 2,400 people to board the Grand Princess ship in February, but did not tell them that at least two passengers from the previous trip had coronavirus symptoms. The cruise ship didn't impose medical screenings for disembarking or embarking passengers, and made no effort to sanitize or disinfect the ship before new passengers arrived, the suit said.
Among the passengers sailing on the Grand Princess, which left San Francisco for Hawaii on Feb. 21, were several dozen people who had traveled on the Grand Princess' previous trip to Mexico and remained on board for the Hawaii trip, some of whom had been potentially exposed to COVID-19, according to the complaint.
On March 4, Princess told the passengers they were potentially exposed to COVID-19 and that the ship would return to San Francisco instead of continuing to other scheduled destinations. The following day, passengers were advised to remain isolated in their cabins, the complaint said.
The plaintiffs said "11 passengers and 10 crew members who were experiencing symptoms" were among those on the ship.
When the ship's passengers disembarked in California on March 9, state and federal agencies transported them to military bases in three states for quarantine before being allowed to return to their homes, according to the lawsuit.
On Aug. 31, the plaintiffs asked the judge to certify them as a class because of the "common experience" of being "trapped onboard the same cruise ship served by the same crew members, and who, over the same series of days during the same cruise itinerary, uniformly experienced the same misconduct by defendants," according to their motion.
In their joint opposition earlier this month, Princess and Carnival argued the injuries of the 62 plaintiffs vary widely, with "the vast majority" not alleging they contracted COVID-19.
The passengers are represented by Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Jonathan D. Selbin and Mark P. Chalos of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Mary E. Alexander and Brendan D.S. Way of Mary Alexander & Associates PC, Gretchen M. Nelson and Carlos F. Llinás Negret of Nelson & Fraenkel LLP, and Joseph G. Sauder of Sauder Schelkopf LLC.
Princess is represented by Jeffrey B. Maltzman, Rafaela P. Castells, Edgar R. Nield and Gabrielle De Santis Nield of Maltzman & Partners PA.
Carnival is represented by Jonathan W. Hughes, Angel Tang Nakamura, Andrew Johnson and David J. Weiner of Arnold & Porter.
The case is Archer et al. v. Carnival Corp. and PLC et al., case number 2:20-cv-04203, in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
-Additional reporting by Rachel O'Brien. Editing by Adam LoBelia.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
