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 California newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360 (October 5, 2020, 7:29 PM EDT ) A proposed class action that blames Carnival Corp. for Princess Cruise Line passengers contracting COVID-19 must be dismissed since the named plaintiff has not alleged that she got sick from a March cruise, the cruise company has argued.
Carnival said Friday that lead plaintiff Kathleen O'Neill hasn't sufficiently argued that she couldn't have contracted the virus from a different source after coming home. The cruise line also pointed out that O'Neill had "spent the last five to six days of the cruise confined to her room with her husband who did not test positive for COVID-19" after passengers were instructed by cruise staff to return to their cabins as a precaution against the virus.
"O'Neill does not allege when she contracted COVID-19 and, as noted above, she never once alleges that she actually contracted COVID-19 on the Coral Princess," Carnival said. "If O'Neill did not contract COVID-19 on the vessel, then she has no plausible factual allegations to support even an inference that defendants' conduct caused her alleged injuries. This failure on its own compels dismissal of the [suit]."
O'Neill filed the suit in July, alleging that Carnival Corp. had endangered lives when several of its passengers on its Coral Princess cruise ship contracted coronavirus despite a senior physician's assurances that the vessel was safe from the virus. Two passengers eventually died from coronavirus before O'Neill and her husband were able to successfully return home, according to the complaint.
O'Neill alleges that she experienced symptoms associated with COVID-19 while aboard but that she wasn't diagnosed with the virus until some time after she left the cruise ship.
Carnival on Friday cited a Ninth Circuit opinion in arguing that O'Neill hasn't disproved an "obvious alternative explanation" for her getting COVID-19, which Carnival claimed originated from somewhere other than its cruise ship.
The Ninth Circuit case, Claudia Rueda Vidal v. Andrew Bolton
, sided with immigration authorities in a wrongful arrest suit, finding that the authorities were right to arrest an immigrant due to an "'obvious alternative explanation' that the officers were aware of her immigration status, giving them reasonable suspicion and probable cause for her arrest."Carnival subsidiary Princess Cruises made similar arguments in an August dismissal motion for O'Neill's suit, stating she had agreed to a class action waiver after buying her cruise ticket. Carnival also agreed with Princess Cruises that her bid for an injunction requiring social distancing, mask usage and other precautionary measures on its cruise ships should be denied since she can't prove that she'll suffer injury from Carnival's future business conduct.
Carnival representatives declined to comment. Attorneys for the parties did not respond Monday to requests for comment.
O'Neill is represented by Alison E. Chase and Gretchen Freeman Cappio of Keller Rohrback LLP.
Carnival is represented by Jonathan W. Hughes of Arnold & Porter.
Princess is represented by Jeffrey B. Maltzman of Maltzman & Partners PA.
The case is O'Neill v. Carnival Corp. et al., case number 2:20-cv-06218, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
--Editing by Orlando Lorenzo.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
