Case: 19-10455 Date Filed: 11/27/2019 Page: 1 of 16
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-10455
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:18-cv-62522-UU
TANYA LEBEDINSKY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MSC CRUISES, S.A.,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(November 27, 2019)
Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 19-10455 Date Filed: 11/27/2019 Page: 2 of 16
Tanya Lebedinsky appeals the district court’s grant of MSC Cruises, S.A.’s
motion to dismiss for improper venue. On appeal, Lebedinsky argues that the
district court erred when it ruled that the forum selection clause contained in MSC
Cruises’ contractual terms and conditions was enforceable, requiring her to bring
her lawsuit in Italian court. After careful review, we affirm the district court’s
dismissal.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
Lebedinsky took a cruise aboard the MSC Musica, beginning and ending in
Venice, Italy, with intermediate stops in Italy, Greece, and Montenegro.
Lebedinsky’s daughter purchased the ticket for her mother through an online ticket
agent. Lebedinsky’s involvement was limited to payment; she does not recall
reviewing confirmation documents for the trip. She does not dispute that she
received the documents, however. While on the cruise, Lebedinsky fell, resulting
in a host of serious injuries. She was medically disembarked to an Italian hospital
and then flown to a New York hospital where she continued to receive treatment.
MSC Cruises issued a Booking Confirmation to Lebedinsky five months
prior to the start of her voyage and again to her travel agent days prior to the
voyage. The Booking Confirmation contained a “Booking Terms and Conditions”
section, under the heading “IMPORTANT INFORMATION”:
2
Case: 19-10455 Date Filed: 11/27/2019 Page: 3 of 16
Booking Terms and Conditions
The present booking is regulated by the Booking Terms and
Conditions. Passengers acknowledge that they have received a copy,
read and accepted the Booking Terms and Conditions before
confirming their booking. A copy of the Standard Booking Terms and
Conditions [] is also available on our website www.msccruises.com.
Changes and cancellations are subject to penalties according to the
Booking Terms and Conditions.
Doc. 9-3 at 10. 1 The Booking Terms and Conditions were on the same page as
other important information such as when final payments were due, what charges
applied to cancellation requests, and what travel documents were required to board
the cruise.
Following the link in the Booking Terms and Conditions led to MSC
Cruises’ website home page. A link at the bottom of the home page led to the
“Terms and Conditions” governing MSC Musica’s voyage. On the Terms and
Conditions page, there was the following notice:
NOTICE TO PASSENGER: Below and attached to your Boarding
Coupon, Passenger Ticket and (if contracted) Transfer Voucher are
the terms and conditions of the Passenger Contract. Before accepting
them, carefully read all the terms of the following Passenger Contract
which contains important conditions and limitations including
Clauses 20 to 26 which set out some of our rights, limitations of
liability, court jurisdiction and time limits to file claims or to bring
suit.
Id. at 18 (“Passenger Notice”) (emphasis added). Directly below the Passenger
Notice was a “Passenger Contract” paragraph:
1
“Doc. #” refers to the numbered entry on the district court’s docket.
3
Case: 19-10455 Date Filed: 11/27/2019 Page: 4 of 16
PASSENGER CONTRACT: Carefully read all terms and conditions
before accepting them. Clauses 20 to 26 set out your rights and
limitations to make claims. Please retain this document for future
reference. TO REVIEW THE PASS[ENGER] CONTRACT CLICK
HERE.
Id. at 18 (emphasis added). Clicking on the link within the phrase “TO REVIEW
THE PASS[ENGER] CONTRACT CLICK HERE,” led to all the provisions
within the Passenger Contract.
An “Applicable Law” section in the Passenger Contract contained a forum
selection clause stating that “[f]or Voyages that do not include a port in [the]
U.S.A., all claims arising out of this Contract or relating to or arising from this
Contract or your cruise shall be brought in and be subject to the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Courts of Naples, Italy.” Id. at 19-20. The “Jurisdiction”
section further noted that “[u]nless differently provided by any applicable law, []
all claims against [MSC Cruises] shall be brought in and be subject to the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of Naples, Italy.” Id. at 24.
The Passenger Contract also included Conditions of Carriage governing the
voyage on MSC Musica:
CONDITIONS OF CARRIAGE
Standard conditions of carriage
These Conditions of Carriage set out the terms that govern the
relationship, responsibilities and liabilities as between the Passenger
and the Carrier and are BINDING ON THE PARTIES.
4
Case: 19-10455 Date Filed: 11/27/2019 Page: 5 of 16
The Passenger has entered into a Passage Contract with an Organizer
and these conditions have been incorporated into the Passenger’s
contract with the Organizer. These Terms and Conditions of Carriage
will also apply where the Vessel is being used as a floating hotel
whether or not there is a Passage Contract and whether or not there is
any carriage.
You must carefully read these conditions of carriage which set out
your rights, responsibilities and limitations to make claims against the
Carrier, its servants and/or agents. The Carrier’s liability is limited as
set out in Clauses 22 and 23.
Doc. 9-2 at 2. Under the “Liability” section of the Conditions of Carriage, MSC
Cruises expressly incorporated the Athens Convention, an international treaty
governing the carriage by sea of passengers and their luggage. Here, MSC Cruises
noted that “[t]he liability of the Carrier for death, personal injury or illness to the
Passenger shall not exceed 46,666 Special Drawing Rights (“SDR”)[2] as provided
and defined in the Athens Convention.” Appellant Br., Addendum 1 at 39-40.
We refer to the Booking Terms and Conditions, the Passenger Contract, and
the Conditions of Carriage on MSC Cruises’ website collectively as the “terms and
conditions.”
2
An SDR is an artificial currency instrument created by the International Monetary Fund
(“IMF”), which uses SDRs for internal accounting purposes. The SDR serves as the unit of
account of the IMF and some other international organizations. Special Drawing Right,
International Monetary Fund (Mar. 8, 2019), https://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/Sheets/
2016/08/01/14/51/Special-Drawing-Right-SDR (last visited Nov. 19, 2019).
5
Case: 19-10455 Date Filed: 11/27/2019 Page: 6 of 16
B. Procedural Background
Lebedinsky filed a lawsuit against MSC Cruises in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida. MSC Cruises moved to dismiss for
improper venue and on forum non conveniens grounds. The district court granted
the motion, concluding that the forum selection clause required Lebedinsky to
bring her lawsuit in Italy. This appeal followed.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal based on a forum selection
clause in an international agreement. Lipcon v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London,
148 F.3d 1285, 1290-91 (11th Cir. 1998).
III. DISCUSSION
Forum selection clauses are presumptively valid and enforceable unless the
plaintiff makes a “strong showing” that enforcement would be unfair or
unreasonable under the circumstances. Krenkel v. Kerzner Int’l Hotels Ltd.,
579
F.3d 1279, 1281 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute,
499
U.S. 585, 593–95 (1991); M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off–Shore Co.,
407 U.S. 1, 10
(1972)). A forum selection clause will be invalidated when: “(1) its formation was
induced by fraud or overreaching; (2) the plaintiff would be deprived of [her] day
in court because of inconvenience or unfairness; (3) the chosen law would deprive
6
Case: 19-10455 Date Filed: 11/27/2019 Page: 7 of 16
the plaintiff of a remedy; or (4) enforcement of the clause would contravene public
policy.”
Id.
On appeal, Lebedinsky argues that the district court erred in concluding that
the forum selection clause was valid and enforceable because: (1) the forum
selection clause was induced by overreaching because it was not reasonably
communicated to passengers, (2) the invocation of the Athens Convention
contravenes public policy and would effectively deprive her of a remedy, and (3)
circumstances, including her injuries and her treatment in New York, make Naples,
Italy an inconvenient forum. We address these arguments in turn.
A. The Forum Selection Clause’s Formation Was Not Induced by Fraud or
Overreaching.
Lebedinsky argues that the terms and conditions, including the forum
selection clause, were not reasonably communicated because MSC Cruises did not
include a sufficiently prominent warning about the content of the terms and
conditions nor did it present them in a clear enough manner.
We apply a two-part test of “reasonable communicativeness” when
determining whether a forum selection clause was induced by fraud or
overreaching, considering (1) the clause’s physical characteristics and (2) whether
the plaintiffs had the ability to become meaningfully informed of the clause and to
reject its terms. Id.; see also Estate of Myhra v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.,
695 F.3d 1233, 1244–46 (11th Cir. 2012), superseded on other grounds as
7
Case: 19-10455 Date Filed: 11/27/2019 Page: 8 of 16
recognized by Caron v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.,
910 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir. 2018)
(applying the two-part “reasonable communicativeness” test). MSC Cruises’
forum selection clause satisfies both prongs.
1. The Clause’s Physical Characteristics
Lebedinsky contends that MSC Cruises’ forum selection clause failed the
physical characteristics prong because the clause lacked “clarity in plain language”
and the information MSC Cruises provided did not “conspicuously call attention”
to the forum selection clause. Appellant Br. at 23, 25. To satisfy this prong,
however, it is enough that the forum selection clause was clearly set out and
contained clear language. MSC Cruises’ forum selection clause met these criteria.
The placement and appearance of MSC Cruises’ forum selection clause were
like the clause in Estate of Myhra, which we held satisfied the physical
characteristics prong. See 695 F.3d at 1244–45. There, the forum selection
language was included near the bottom of a “Booking Conditions” section, which
appeared on page 128 of a cruise line’s “obviously lengthy booklet.” Id. at 1244.
The forum selection language was set out in identical type as the rest of the
conditions but under “clear plain-English headings.” Id. at 1245. In this case, the
passenger was required to follow two hyperlinks and then scroll down to locate the
forum selection clause; we find no meaningful difference between doing so and
paging through a booklet. And because the forum selection language in MSC
8
Case: 19-10455 Date Filed: 11/27/2019 Page: 9 of 16
Cruises’ terms and conditions had the same characteristics—set out in identical
typeface under clear headings—it satisfied the physical characteristics prong. See
id.
2. Lebedinsky’s Opportunity to Become Meaningfully Informed of
the Clause
The second prong of the “reasonably communicated” test asks whether a
plaintiff had the ability to “become meaningfully informed of the clause and reject
its terms.” Krenkel,
579 F.3d at 1281. Citing Wallis v. Princess Cruises, Inc. as
support, Lebedinsky contends that MSC Cruises failed to “meaningfully inform”
her of the relevant terms and conditions, including the forum selection clause,
because a layperson could not understand the implications of the inclusion of the
Athens Convention in the limitations of liability provisions. See
306 F.3d 827,
836–37 (9th Cir. 2002). This argument fails for two reasons. First, Lebedinsky
impermissibly shifts the focus of the “meaningfully inform” inquiry from the
forum selection clause to the terms and conditions in their totality. See Krenkel,
579 F.3d at 1281 (“A useful two-part test of ‘reasonable communicativeness’ takes
into account . . . whether the plaintiff[] had the ability to become meaningfully
informed of the [forum selection] clause and to reject its terms” (emphasis added)).
Second, the court in Wallis was examining a more complex provision than the one
found here. See
306 F.3d at 830, 836–37. The limitation of liability provision in
Wallis required the passenger to reference and interpret several outside sources to
9
Case: 19-10455 Date Filed: 11/27/2019 Page: 10 of 16
fully understand its implications. The court held that a layperson could not be
expected to fully understand the provision and, therefore, it was not reasonably
communicated to the passengers.
Id. But, here, the forum selection clause’s
language is clear and unambiguous, requiring that all claims be brought in Italian
court if, like the MSC Musica, the cruise ship did not enter a United States port.
Therefore, Wallis is inapposite.
Unlike in Wallis, in this case Lebedinsky had the opportunity to become
meaningfully informed of the forum selection clause. Both Lebedinsky and her
travel agent were given the Booking Confirmation with a notice regarding the
Booking Terms and Conditions, which contained a link to MSC Cruises’ website,
where the terms and conditions, including the forum selection clause, could be
found. Lebedinsky does not dispute receipt of the Booking Confirmation over five
months before the cruise. And the language of the forum selection clause
unambiguously stated that claims arising out of the voyage on MSC Musica had to
be brought in Italy. Therefore, Lebedinsky had the time and opportunity to
become meaningfully informed of the forum selection clause. See id.; see also
Vanderham v. Brookfield Asset Mgmt., Inc.,
102 F. Supp. 3d 1315, 1319–20 (S.D.
Fla. 2015) (concluding that plaintiff was meaningfully informed when sent an
email with a link containing information regarding forum selection clause).
10
Case: 19-10455 Date Filed: 11/27/2019 Page: 11 of 16
MSC Cruises’ forum selection language satisfies the two-part test of
“reasonable communicativeness” and, therefore, was not induced by fraud or
overreaching.
B. The Forum Selection Clause Does Not Deprive Lebedinsky of Her Day
in Court Because of Inconvenience or Unfairness.
A forum selection clause can be unreasonable—and therefore
unenforceable—“if the chosen forum is seriously inconvenient for the trial of the
action.” M/S Bremen,
407 U.S. at 16. When the parties to an agreement
“contemplated the claimed inconvenience,” however, a court requires “a heavy
burden of proof” to render a forum selection clause unenforceable.
Id. at 16-17.
Lebedinsky has not met that burden.
Lebedinsky contends that circumstances—including the continued pain she
suffered in the United States from her injury, her treatment in New York, fact
witnesses located in New York, and MSC Cruises’ connection to the United
States 3— render the forum selection clause so inconvenient that it is
unenforceable. But these circumstances are not the type of uncontemplated
inconveniences that justify the invalidation of a forum selection clause. See
id. at
16.
3
Lebedinsky characterizes MSC Cruises as a “U.S. headquartered company.” Appellant
Br. at 32. MSC Cruises disputes that it is headquartered in the United States. We do not resolve
this factual dispute because it does not affect our determination that the forum selection language
binds Lebedinsky.
11
Case: 19-10455 Date Filed: 11/27/2019 Page: 12 of 16
The MSC Musica did not travel to any United States port of call; its journey
began and ended in Italy with stops in other European ports. Italy, therefore, is not
a remote alien forum for this dispute. Instead, Italy is the forum where a dispute
relevant to voyage on the MSC Musica would most likely arise. That Lebedinsky’s
injury was treated in New York does not change that fact; an injury taking place on
the MSC Musica is exactly the “particular controversy [the parties had] in mind”
when they selected Italy as a forum.
Id. at 17.
We are sympathetic to Lebedinsky’s injuries, but “whatever inconvenience
[she] would suffer by being forced to litigate in the contractual forum as [she]
agreed to do was clearly foreseeable at the time of contracting.”
Id. at 17-18
(internal quotation marks omitted). The enforcement of the forum selection clause
thus does not deprive Lebedinsky her day in court due to inconvenience.
C. Italian Law Would Not Deprive Lebedinsky of a Remedy.
Lebedinsky asserts that she has incurred approximately $750,000 in
damages, and due to MSC Cruises’ invocation of the Athens Convention and its
liability limitations, Italian courts offer essentially no remedy. Even if we assume
that the Italian court would apply the Athens Convention, 4 Lebedinsky would not
be deprived of a remedy.
4
See Estate of Myhra, 695 F.3d at 1243 (“[A] choice-of-forum clause merely directs the
litigation to a particular forum, usually one with a significant connection with the incident or
12
Case: 19-10455 Date Filed: 11/27/2019 Page: 13 of 16
MSC Cruises’ terms and conditions limit liability pursuant to the Athens
Convention for voyages where the cruise ship embarks or disembarks from a
country in the European Union, as MSC Musica did. The Athens Convention
states: “The liability of the carrier for the death of or personal injury to a
passenger shall in no case exceed 46,666 [SDR] per carriage.” Athens Convention
Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and Their Luggage by Sea, art. 7, Nov. 19,
1976, 1463 U.N.T.S. 19. Thus, assuming without deciding that the Athens
Convention would be applied, it would appear to limit Lebedinsky’s recovery to
46,666 SDRs, or approximately $64,000,5 well short of the $750,000 in damages
that Lebedinsky claims to have incurred. But the potential for decreased recovery
is not the same as no remedy.
This Court does not invalidate a forum selection clause “simply because the
remedies available in the contractually chosen forum are less favorable than those
available in the courts of the United States.” Lipcon,
148 F.3d at 1297. Only
remedies that are “so inadequate that enforcement would be fundamentally unfair”
render a chosen forum inadequate. Id.; see also Riley v. Kingsley Underwriting
Agencies,
969 F.2d 953, 958 (10th Cir. 2002) (“The fact that an international
transaction may be subject to laws and remedies different and less favorable than
with the parties, for adjudication.”). A forum selection clause does not mandate what substantive
law applies; the jurisdiction where a case is heard makes that determination.
5
Conversion rates for SDRs to U.S. dollars can be found at https://www.imf.org/external/
np/fin/data/rms_sdrv.aspx.
13
Case: 19-10455 Date Filed: 11/27/2019 Page: 14 of 16
those of the United States is not a valid basis to deny enforcement, provided that
the law of the chosen forum is not inherently unfair.”). We acknowledge that there
may be a point at which a reduced recovery dictated by the law of a chosen forum
is so low relative to the plaintiff’s damages as to render the choice of forum
fundamentally unfair. But here, the possibility of reduced recovery does not
amount to fundamental unfairness, and the potential application of the Athens
Convention cannot justify the forum selection clause’s invalidation. See Lipcon,
148 F.3d at 1297.
Lebedinsky offers no other argument as to the inadequacy of Italy as a
forum. Therefore, she has not shown that Italy as a forum would deprive her of a
remedy.
D. Enforcement of the Forum Selection Clause Would Not Contravene
Public Policy.
Lebedinsky contends that there is a strong public policy contained within the
United States’ “general maritime law that opposes carrier limits on passenger
liability for negligence,” evidenced by Congress’s passage of
46 U.S.C. § 30509
prohibiting the owner of a ship that travels between ports in the U.S. and a port in a
foreign country from limiting its liability to passengers. Appellant Br. at 19. For
this argument, too, she assumes that enforcement of the forum selection clause
would likely result in application of the Athens Convention. Because the Athens
Convention limits liability for negligence, she argues that its application would
14
Case: 19-10455 Date Filed: 11/27/2019 Page: 15 of 16
contravene public policy. This Court has previously rejected the argument that
where enforcing a forum clause would effect a limitation of liability, public policy
bans enforcement of the clause. See Estate of Myhra, 695 F.3d at 1242-43.
Specifically, in Estate of Myhra, we addressed the questions of “whether the
use of a forum-selection clause that selects venue where domestic law, if
applicable, would effect a limitation of liability should be considered within the
ambit of [§ 30509’s] prohibition,” and “whether such a prohibition constitutes a
sufficiently strong public policy of the United States to bar enforcement of the
clause.” Id. at 1242. We answered both questions in the negative. See id. at 1243.
Further, as explained in Estate of Myhra, Congress’s opposition to liability
limitation provisions “was to forbid the unilateral imposition of a limitation of
liability by a ship owner without any recourse to judicial process.” Id. (emphasis
added). This policy concern does not extend to forum selection clauses because
forum selection clauses merely direct a dispute to a particular jurisdiction. “[I]t is
clear that Congress understood that the usual rules of jurisdiction and choice of law
would produce, in some instances, a limitation on liability.” Id. Applying the
reasoning we employed in Estate of Myhra, MSC Cruises’ forum selection clause
would not contravene public policy.
Accordingly, MSC Cruises’ forum selection clause (1) was not induced by
fraud or overreaching, (2) would not deprive Lebedinsky of her day in court, (3)
15
Case: 19-10455 Date Filed: 11/27/2019 Page: 16 of 16
would not deprive her of a remedy, and (4) did not contravene public policy.
Lebedinsky therefore has not made a “strong showing” that its enforcement would
be unfair or unreasonable under the circumstances. Krenkel,
579 F.3d at 1281.
Lebedinsky may bring suit for redress of her injuries only in an Italian court,
consistent with the terms of the forum selection clause.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s grant of MCS
Cruises’ motion to dismiss.
AFFIRMED.
16
