CELEBRATION CRUISE LINE, LLC. v. OLEKSANDR DOBRIANSKIY

District Court of Appeal of Florida

CELEBRATION CRUISE LINE, LLC. v. OLEKSANDR DOBRIANSKIY

225 So. 3d 284, 2017 WL 3411906, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 11474

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 9, 2017

Docket17-0514

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 225 So. 3d 284 (CELEBRATION CRUISE LINE, LLC. v. OLEKSANDR DOBRIANSKIY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

CELEBRATION CRUISE LINE, LLC. v. OLEKSANDR DOBRIANSKIY, 225 So. 3d 284, 2017 WL 3411906, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 11474 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

*285 Per Curiam.

Celebration Cruise Line, LLC appeals an order denying its motion to dismiss a personal injury suit based upon forum non conveniens. Because the trial court did not conduct the analysis required by Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 674 So.2d 86 (Fla. 1996), or provide any explanation for denial, we reverse.

A cruise ship employee is suing for negligence under the Jones Act and unseaworthiness after the employee lost a finger and permanently damaged three other fingers while mooring a supply vessel. Appellant moved to dismiss arguing in part that Broward County is an inconvenient forum and Florida has no nexus to this suit. Appellant provided affidavits and contracts to show that Celebration Cruise Holdings, Inc. sold the ship for scrap before the employee, a Ukrainian citizen, was hired by another company in the Ukraine to help transport the ship from the Bahamas to India. On route to India, he was injured in Namibia. Appellant alleged that it did not own or have control of the ship, it did not hire the employee, the ship was never in Florida after it was sold, the employee did not receive medical treatment in Florida, and there are no witnesses here. Appellant was mistakenly listed as the ship owner on the employment contract, but the ship had been sold and delivered to the buyer, Gu-nehr Shipping, Ltd., before the employee was recruited.

The employee did not provide any evidence to the contrary. He argued that resolution of this issue was premature until he conducted further discovery.

The court did not weigh the Kinney factors at the hearing on the motion to dismiss or make any findings in its order. See also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.061(a) (codifying the Kiriney factors). The court simply denied the motion without explanation.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. See, e.g., Sybac Solar AG, Co. v. Falz, 174 So.3d 383 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).

Reversed and remanded.

Gerber, C.J., Warner and Ciklin, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*285 Per Curiam.

Celebration Cruise Line, LLC appeals an order denying its motion to dismiss a personal injury suit based upon forum non conveniens. Because the trial court did not conduct the analysis required by Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 674 So.2d 86 (Fla. 1996), or provide any explanation for denial, we reverse.

A cruise ship employee is suing for negligence under the Jones Act and unseaworthiness after the employee lost a finger and permanently damaged three other fingers while mooring a supply vessel. Appellant moved to dismiss arguing in part that Broward County is an inconvenient forum and Florida has no nexus to this suit. Appellant provided affidavits and contracts to show that Celebration Cruise Holdings, Inc. sold the ship for scrap before the employee, a Ukrainian citizen, was hired by another company in the Ukraine to help transport the ship from the Bahamas to India. On route to India, he was injured in Namibia. Appellant alleged that it did not own or have control of the ship, it did not hire the employee, the ship was never in Florida after it was sold, the employee did not receive medical treatment in Florida, and there are no witnesses here. Appellant was mistakenly listed as the ship owner on the employment contract, but the ship had been sold and delivered to the buyer, Gu-nehr Shipping, Ltd., before the employee was recruited.

The employee did not provide any evidence to the contrary. He argued that resolution of this issue was premature until he conducted further discovery.

The court did not weigh the Kinney factors at the hearing on the motion to dismiss or make any findings in its order. See also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.061(a) (codifying the Kiriney factors). The court simply denied the motion without explanation.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. See, e.g., Sybac Solar AG, Co. v. Falz, 174 So.3d 383 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).

Reversed and remanded.

Gerber, C.J., Warner and Ciklin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 So. 3d 284, 2017 WL 3411906, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 11474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/celebration-cruise-line-llc-v-oleksandr-dobrianskiy-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack