Carnival Triumph seized in Galveston due to Costa Concordia accident

[k5jm]

Wow, half-way around the world, Carnival is starting to feel the U.S. pinch of that horrible disaster fallout.

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/145431655.html?cmpid=15585797

Carnival cruise ship briefly seized in Texas

MATT CURRY
The Associated Press

DALLAS - U.S. marshals briefly seized a cruise ship in coastal Texas on Saturday under a judge's order in a $10 million lawsuit filed on behalf of a woman who died in the Italian cruise ship disaster.

The Carnival Triumph was seized for several hours at its port in Galveston, where it was scheduled to leave with 2,700 passengers. Both sides said they reached a confidential deal late Saturday afternoon that released the ship for its five-day cruise to Mexico.

A Texas judge had ordered the seizure to secure the plaintiff's claims against Carnival Corp., the Miami-based parent company of the Italian cruise line whose ship hit a reef and sank off an Italian island in January. The lawsuit was filed Thursday on behalf of a German woman who died in the wreck, which killed 32 people.

Plaintiff attorney John Eaves Jr. said he didn't file the lawsuit to inconvenience passengers of the Carnival Triumph, but rather to emphasize to Carnival the need for improved safety. He said terms of Saturday's agreement were confidential.

Carnival released a statement noting that the lawsuit was related to a European-based sister cruise line. The company said "the matter involving the Carnival Triumph" was resolved and the ship departed early Saturday evening.

Deputy U.S. Marshal Alfredo Perez confirmed that marshals seized the vessel and held it through Saturday afternoon. Passengers were allowed on and off the ship, which wasn't allowed to leave its port while the deal was negotiated.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the estate of Siglinde Stumpf, claims that Carnival shared responsibility for Stumpf's death for not preparing and maintaining proper safety programs for all vessels under its control, including the ill-fated Costa Concordia.

The Italian captain of the Costa Concordia when it sank, Francesco Schettino, is under investigation for alleged manslaughter, causing a shipwreck and abandoning ship during the evacuation. Schettino has denied wrongdoing and claimed that the reef wasn't marked on charts.

Eaves argued that the company's training for captains and crew members is inadequate. He said a major aim of the lawsuit was to persuade Carnival to improve safety standards and to join in a campaign to update maritime law, which he said has some good elements but "we want to bring it into the modern age."

 

[sayhello]

If that's an April Fool's joke, I think it's in poor taste! I hope it's not.

Sayhello

 

[k5jm]

That one is real

 

[usnuzuloose]

No, it is not an april fools joke, I was on another site and chatting with folks on the ship. Carnival did make bond so the ship did end up sailing. Alot of people thought it was a joke also. The Triumph is an assest of Utopia and Carnival. So the ship was seized for an assest, unless Carnival reached another way to secure assests.

Thank You OP for posting the pics of the Marshalls, no one got that.

 

[sayhello]

Wow!!! Crazy. I wouldn't have been amused if I was scheduled to depart on that cruise!

I mean, all's well that ends well, but it couldn't have been a fun afternoon!

Sayhello

 

[k5jm]

In black and white!

 

[usnuzuloose]

Wow!!! Crazy. I wouldn't have been amused if I was scheduled to depart on that cruise!

I mean, all's well that ends well, but it couldn't have been a fun afternoon!

Sayhello

At least they got to go.

 

[k5jm]

Our local Houston news is reporting that the plaintiff and the defendant in the case came to an agreement out of court and that the agreement terms were confidential.

I am wondering if the Triumph will become the leverage piece for future plaintiffs.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8602839

...Plaintiff attorney John Eaves Jr. said he didn't file the lawsuit to inconvenience passengers of the Carnival Triumph, but rather to emphasize to Carnival the need for improved safety. He said terms of Saturday's agreement were confidential.

Any thoughts, Jack?

The information contained in this post is provided to you “AS IS”, does not constitute legal advice, Jack is not acting as your attorney. He make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to this post and its posts.

The law changes very rapidly and, accordingly, Jack does not guarantee that any information on this web site or affiliated posts is accurate and up to date. Additionally, the law differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and is subject to interpretation of courts located in each county....blah, blah, blah

 

[jcb]

My thoughts will be much better informed after I can look at the docket.

Even so, several things stand out.

The clerk's warrant states that the seizure is to serve the complaint and warrant. That smacks of the Civil Procedure Rules governing maritme claims. A special rule applies to service of process in "in rem" actions (which is a lot more common under maritime law than elsewhere). Just guessing, I suppose the plaintiff's lawyer wanted to take advantage of a service of process rule which says:

If tangible property is to be attached or arrested, the marshal or other person or organization having the warrant shall take it into the marshal’s possession for safe custody. If the character or situation of the property is such that the taking of actual possession is impracticable, the marshal or other person executing the process shall affix a copy thereof to the property in a conspicuous place and leave a copy of the complaint and process with the person having possession or the person’s agent. In furtherance of the marshal’s custody of any vessel the marshal is authorized to make a written request to the collector of customs not to grant clearance to such vessel until notified by the marshal or deputy marshal or by the clerk that the vessel has been released in accordance with these rules.

I guessing, but tonight I'll pull up the court's docket and try to figure out what happened, procedurally.

 

[k5jm]

Thank you for your insight, Jack!

 

[k5jm]

Maritime Law Specialist's take:

http://www.cruiselawnews.com/2012/0...oncordia-disaster-seize-the-carnival-triumph/

Here is the legal filing:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_PS2m80prRfUmFnX1IwaVRRS3VDSEpsOFZGS0FkQQ/edit?pli=1#

 

[jcb]

Maritime Law Specialist's take:

http://www.cruiselawnews.com/2012/0...oncordia-disaster-seize-the-carnival-triumph/

That is exactly what I was going to say.

 

[jcb]

I don't have much more intelligent things to say about this but that won't stop me.

For those that like this stuff, here is a link to the complaint and the request for seizure. The rest of what I found was largely uninformative consisting of record entries but no filings.

03/31/2012 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John R Froeschner. MOTION HEARING re: release of seized vessel held on 3/31/2012. Appearances:Frank Spagnoletti, Jim Brown, Thomas Nork. John Arthur Eaves. (No record pursuant to informal hearing conducted by Judge), filed....*** Parties reached agreement to release vessel. Oral Order issued to USM for release of vessel(sanderson, ) (Entered: 04/02/2012)
03/31/2012 ORAL ORDER directly USM to release seized vessel.(Signed by Magistrate Judge John R Froeschner) Parties notified.(sanderson, ) (*** Judge notified USM via phone call to release vessel) (Entered: 04/02/2012

I haven't seen anything that makes me question my initial conclusion, that this is attorney grandstanding. The Costa Concordia sinking should have been avoided and Carnival (and its insurers) are going to and should pay dearly for the injuries and loss of life.

But remember, the plaintiff is a German citizen and Carnival is a foreign corporation. I personally tend to wonder, unless the plaintiff was a U.S. citizen, why U.S. Courts should be involved with the Costa Concordia accident. But it is not uncommon for entirely extra-jurisdictional acts to land the parties in in U.S. Courts (because other countries tend not to award damages on the scale U.S. Courts are believed to award) so this isn't what bothers me.

What offends me is that instead of suing where Carnival's U.S. offices are, the attorney decides to sue where Carnival has no U.S. offices just so he could have Federal Marshalls "serve" process by attaching the Triumph, a ship that is not own by Costa but by a sister corporation.

 

[disney david]

I don't have much more intelligent things to say about this but that won't stop me.

For those that like this stuff, here is a link to the complaint and the request for seizure. The rest of what I found was largely uninformative consisting of record entries but no filings.


I haven't seen anything that makes me question my initial conclusion, that this is attorney grandstanding. The Costa Concordia sinking should have been avoided and Carnival (and its insurers) are going to and should pay dearly for the injuries and loss of life.

But remember, the plaintiff is a German citizen and Carnival is a foreign corporation. I personally tend to wonder, unless the plaintiff was a U.S. citizen, why U.S. Courts should be involved with the Costa Concordia accident. But it is not uncommon for entirely extra-jurisdictional acts to land the parties in in U.S. Courts (because other countries tend not to award damages on the scale U.S. Courts are believed to award) so this isn't what bothers me.

What offends me is that instead of suing where Carnival's U.S. offices are, the attorney decides to sue where Carnival has no U.S. offices just so he could have Federal Marshalls "serve" process by attaching the Triumph, a ship that is not own by Costa but by a sister corporation.

i know your not happy about this so let me try to cheer you up jcb sony and disney parks has announced a new partnership to promote the new line of cameras.


http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/56Fow0/*****************/disney-technology/sony-teams-up-with-disney-parks-to-promote-latest-handycam-camcorders/

 

[CastawayJP]

I don't have much more intelligent things to say about this but that won't stop me.

For those that like this stuff, here is a link to the complaint and the request for seizure. The rest of what I found was largely uninformative consisting of record entries but no filings.


I haven't seen anything that makes me question my initial conclusion, that this is attorney grandstanding. The Costa Concordia sinking should have been avoided and Carnival (and its insurers) are going to and should pay dearly for the injuries and loss of life.

But remember, the plaintiff is a German citizen and Carnival is a foreign corporation. I personally tend to wonder, unless the plaintiff was a U.S. citizen, why U.S. Courts should be involved with the Costa Concordia accident. But it is not uncommon for entirely extra-jurisdictional acts to land the parties in in U.S. Courts (because other countries tend not to award damages on the scale U.S. Courts are believed to award) so this isn't what bothers me.

What offends me is that instead of suing where Carnival's U.S. offices are, the attorney decides to sue where Carnival has no U.S. offices just so he could have Federal Marshalls "serve" process by attaching the Triumph, a ship that is not own by Costa but by a sister corporation.

I knew I was angry about this whole thing, but I didn't really know why until you said it so eloquently! Carnival/Costa should have to pay dearly for their error, but this was just what you said, grandstanding... Thank you for sharing your well informed opinion!

 

[Ginamarie]

I don't have much more intelligent things to say about this but that won't stop me.

For those that like this stuff, here is a link to the complaint and the request for seizure. The rest of what I found was largely uninformative consisting of record entries but no filings.


I haven't seen anything that makes me question my initial conclusion, that this is attorney grandstanding. The Costa Concordia sinking should have been avoided and Carnival (and its insurers) are going to and should pay dearly for the injuries and loss of life.

But remember, the plaintiff is a German citizen and Carnival is a foreign corporation. I personally tend to wonder, unless the plaintiff was a U.S. citizen, why U.S. Courts should be involved with the Costa Concordia accident. But it is not uncommon for entirely extra-jurisdictional acts to land the parties in in U.S. Courts (because other countries tend not to award damages on the scale U.S. Courts are believed to award) so this isn't what bothers me.

What offends me is that instead of suing where Carnival's U.S. offices are, the attorney decides to sue where Carnival has no U.S. offices just so he could have Federal Marshalls "serve" process by attaching the Triumph, a ship that is not own by Costa but by a sister corporation.

For "in rem" jurisdiction, neither party needs to be a U.S. citizen because it's based upon the property (ship) being in the United States. There are many in rem and quasi in rem lawsuits in the United States with respect to ships, though more often than not, it's cargo ships.

That being said, I think the attorney involved carefully selected a higher profiled ship, which would generate more press.