Jump to content

Pratique

Members
  • Posts

    2,490
  • Joined

About Me

  • Location
    New Hampshire

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I was thinking that too. An administrative hearing followed by an appeal for those who can afford to fight it. A lot of small businesses probably can't. It will be interesting to see whether there is any public comment on the rule. It would be nice if they started with a warning before triggering the fine. As far as regulations go this one is pretty bare bones.
  2. The proposed rule doesn't say much about what triggers the fine. I expected to see some more definitions of what constitutes a violation.
  3. It is less about the physical location as it is about forum shopping. It is well known that where possible litigants try to choose courts that are potentially "friendlier" to their cases or have so-called "rocket dockets" to move things along quickly. Although it is somewhat of a crapshoot there is some basis for it when you analyze the past rulings and paces of certain judges. There has been some judicial reform to cut down on interstate forum shopping but I don't think it applies in this scenario since it involves two federal courts in the same state.
  4. I'm in wait-and-see mode. I'll make decisions by final payment date. I'll definitely get back on a ship when things appear to settle down and sort out. Thankful for the others who are blazing the trail so I (hopefully) won't have to.
  5. The proposed rule published last week sets the fine at the maximum $5,000 per violation. https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ruleNo.asp?id=64-8.001
  6. Yes. The cruise contract says the cruise line can act at its "sole discretion." There is no room for negotiation.
  7. Then you should also post Florida's motion to enforce the injunction, which the judge disagreed with. You are being selective here.
  8. All of this is still in a state of flux. Things could be different by October, which is near the expiration of the current CSO.
  9. The assurances included a follow-up letter from CDC to the cruise lines clarifying the first letter, and that CDC still has the authority to inspect and quarantine individual ships. This will come home to roost when CDC starts inspecting and quarantining individual ships as it has the authority to do.
  10. Again, the judge wasn’t buying Florida”s story yesterday. It’s pretty simple.
  11. You’ll have to ask them. The state is adamant in court and in public statements that the CSO is unnecessary and they are fighting it tooth and nail. It’s not clear what level of cruise line oversight the state would accept from CDC if any or how it dovetails into what the state is doing to get cruising going again safely.
  12. And yet the injunction only applies to Florida. Go figure.
  13. Florida must think it is relevant because they said it in the part I quoted, and the judge agreed with them (that CDC didn't make a showing of inadequacy). And the moment that the CDC sent the "dear colleague" letter to the cruise lines saying that the CSO was now voluntary, Florida ran to court and asked for a contempt hearing. My point is that if Florida now wants the CDC to let go of the CSO and totally back off of the cruise lines, then who will be to blame if things go south. Florida said it has stepped up and taken responsibility and that the CSO is unnecessary to protect public health. Then so be it. Maybe everything will work out, cross our fingers. But right now it's still very risky for the cruise lines with the rising case numbers among unvaccinated people, and a bad time to be dropping guard.
  14. Florida wants TOURISM. TOURISM = interstate travel, and in Florida's case, lots of it. If Florida wants the responsibility of dealing with out-of-state Covid-infected passengers arriving at its ports, then they can have at it. There was a study done of tracking cell phones from spring break back across the country. People who congregated on Florida's beaches then traveled far and wide. There's a case to be made that the state's efforts were insufficient.
×
×
  • Create New...