NCL sued over restaurants' booking non-avaiability

[Cuizer2]

Interesting link. It calls into question several of the cases, all of which were found on the dumblawsuits website. We have used that website for several years to show how far civil law can go.

 

Now, I do know for a fact that the McDonald's Coffee lawsuit was for real, it is probably the most famous of all fivilous lawsuits.

 

Thanks for the link.

 

Now I wonder how accurate the www.dumblaws.com website is also.....

 

If you are interested in frivolous lawsuits, I suggest this one ...

 

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3269485

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502763_pf.html

 

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/bizarre&id=5389441

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18471265/

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=al2WD_5I5Bjw&refer=us

[Sundagger]

Yes, the McDonald's coffee lawsuit is real. However, many people do not know the actual facts behind the lawsuit. It is not as frivolous as most people think ...

 

 

I think I'll keep those links in a little file (I hate to keep looking up citations on the case) - most people have the impression that it was frivolous. Same with the Shakespeare quote - most people have no idea of what the background of the famous phrase actually is.

[Ms belp]

I think I'll keep those links in a little file (I hate to keep looking up citations on the case) - most people have the impression that it was frivolous. Same with the Shakespeare quote - most people have no idea of what the background of the famous phrase actually is.

 

Would you care to enlighten the rest of us?

[Sundagger]

Would you care to enlighten the rest of us?

There was a brief mention earlier about the Shakespeare quote. Here's an excerpt (from a very self-serving article) that puts the "lawyers" quote in context:

 

"Ironically, the rallying cry of the lawyer bashers has become Shakespeare's quote from Henry VI: "THE FIRST THING WE DO, LET'S KILL ALL THE LAWYERS."

 

Those who use this phrase pejoratively against lawyers are as miserably misguided about their Shakespeare as they are about the judicial system which they disdain so freely.

 

Even a cursory reading of the context in which the lawyer killing statement is made in King Henry VI, Part II, (Act IV), Scene 2, reveals that Shakespeare was paying great and deserved homage to our venerable profession as the front line defenders of democracy.

 

The accolade is spoken by Dick the Butcher, a follower of anarchist Jack Cade, whom Shakespeare depicts as "the head of an army of rabble and a demagogue pandering to the ignorant," who sought to overthrow the government. Shakespeare's acknowledgment that the first thing any potential tyrant must do to eliminate freedom is to "kill all the lawyers" is, indeed, a classic and well-deserved compliment to our distinguished profession."

 

There is an interesting critique of explanations such as this in: http://www.spectacle.org/797/finkel.html

[johnql]

Just because most advertizining is exaggerated or outright lies doesnt mean we have to accept it and buy the product anyway. Yeah they are lying..oh well, they all lie. That's not ok. JMHO

 

I completely agree with you. I never said that we have to accept it and buy the product anyway. I believe the consumer has to take the advertising with a grain of salt and do his/her own due diligence instead of blindly accepting all of the exaggerations. Due diligence includes exercising common sense and doing a bit of research (e.g., internet, magazines, books, friends, Consumer Reports, etc.).

[pyrogy]

This is a very interesting thread and it may have run its course but it does remind me of a situation that arose on the Star. On the first or second sea day, I believe it was optional formal night, both main dining rooms were so busy that at one point during the prime dinner hours there was a full one-hour wait at both.

 

There were some very upset passengers standing in lines, thats for sure.

 

Now I love NCL and I personally have not had much trouble negotiating my way through freestyle dining, but I must admit at that moment I couldn't help but think that for a certain percentage of the passengers it must have seemed like a disaster. Not a lawsuit, of course, but not a good situation either. I shrugged and went to the buffet because I was hungry but I don't think NCL can reasonably expect everyone to be so easy-going.

[beachchick]

I just knew someone would do this someday. Common sense tells us that it's not logistically possible for all pax to dine at the venue they want at the exact moment they want to. I guess sense isn't so common after all.

 

beachchick

[newmexicoNita]

This is a very interesting thread and it may have run its course but it does remind me of a situation that arose on the Star. On the first or second sea day, I believe it was optional formal night, both main dining rooms were so busy that at one point during the prime dinner hours there was a full one-hour wait at both.

 

There were some very upset passengers standing in lines, thats for sure.

 

Now I love NCL and I personally have not had much trouble negotiating my way through freestyle dining, but I must admit at that moment I couldn't help but think that for a certain percentage of the passengers it must have seemed like a disaster. Not a lawsuit, of course, but not a good situation either. I shrugged and went to the buffet because I was hungry but I don't think NCL can reasonably expect everyone to be so easy-going.

I think this is a good point: we have always been lucky, even the first night (which normally is prime rib) we have been seated within a minute or tow. ON Princess a few months ago, it was like you said NCL was, everyone was waiting in lines, even one of the two sur charge dining rooms was sold out and you could hear people raising their voices, the hostesses were telling us almost anything to try and keep us calm. My thought was, what a joke this is and of course, in my mind I compared it to NCL (not a good idea, but a human one) we eventually were seated, enjoyed our meal and never really had much of a wait after that. I do bet there were some, not expecting this who will either never cruised Princess again or will remember what a nightmare this was. Of course none of this warrents a law suite.

 

Nita

[terrymtex01]

Since there are already six pages for this posting already, I am sure few will read this, but I wanted to say it anyway.

 

This is not a bash to the one that is paying devils advocate. I actually appreciated hearing a different point of view. However with that said.. I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV. Well.. not really.. however.. from different shows I have seen on TV.. the movies, etc. I think the law looks at instances or situations as "how a reasonable person would see the situation. I may be WAY off base, but I just think that a reasonable person would know that not every one can eat where they want, when they want, etc. But they can within reason. If I am on a Mexican Riviera cruise and I want to have dinner in Paris, France, should I sue NCL? Should I expect them to make it possible for me to have dinner that night in Paris?

 

Their ad does not say "Eat what you want, when you want, as long as you are on our ship". So what if one night I want Baked Alaska for desert. Should I sue NCL because it was not on the menu? I know I am taking it to the extreme.. but that is my point really. Honestly.. when I read the article, my first thought was I felt sorry for the lady who filed the lawsuit. How unhappy a person she must be.

[tchix]

This also works against class action status. Here is the definition of a class action from an online dictionary ...

 

a legal action undertaken by one or more plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all other persons having an identical interest in the alleged wrong

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/class%20action

 

This ship would consist of several groups:

 

1) Those who could not get reservations (the plaintiffs in this case).

2) Those who could get reservations.

3) Those who could get reservations, but not at their first choice of time or day.

4) Those who never tried to get reservations.

5) Those who could not get reservations, ended up at their second choice and liked it so much that they went back for every dinner since.

6) Those who could not get reservations and don't care that they could not get reservations.

7) Those who were happy that their group leader (most likely this would be the parents of minor children) could not get reservations (because they didn't like that particular restaurant).

 

The damages for each of the above groups is different (in some cases the damages are zero) and thus it is not likely that a class could get certified because each group of people does not have an identical interest in the alleged wrong.

 

Despite my role as devil's advocate here, my regular job is defending companies from exactly these types of suits. And I can tell you that they can try to define the class in a way that makes everyone similar- and you don't need proof or testimony or evidence from anyone but the plaintiff, so it doesn't matter if all the other people can or cannot prove something (or even agree with the lawsuit).

 

As far as what is reasonable, basically the Plaintiff will say that the NCL advertising, cruise documents, website, etc sold a cruise with a major selling point being the flexibility to eat when and where she wanted (within reason). And that it was reasonable for her to expect, based on all that stuff, that she would typically be able to get reservations in the specialty restaurants. So she specifically selected that cruise and paid for it based at least in part on the availability of specialty restaurants that NCL had highly touted in its advertising and documents. Not because she thought she could magically eat in Paris or have baked Alaska or eat with teh captain or whatever other examples people have put up here- just that she would have a decent shot of getting reservations around the times she wanted at these restaurants that NCL was selling as a key, integrated part of their whole cruising concept that differentiated them from other cruiselines. Now, she'll say, at the same time, NCL knew that because of the capacity of the restaurants and their policy of offering advance reservations to suite guests, and perhaps the fullness of the ship, or other factors, that many passengers on this and other cruises would not be able to get reservations for the specialty restaurants either a) at all, or b) for a reasonable number of times, or c) without it being unreasonably difficult, etc. I doubt the lawsuit is about not being able to get one reservation for one restaurant at one time, but probably more about a pattern of not being able to get reservations over the entire cruise or being stuck with very limited times and locations. Because NCL knew when they sold her the cruise that this could be an issue but didn't tell her (kind of like when they say that ports are subject to change or when hotels say that nonsmoking rooms may be sold out), it was deceptive.

 

Now because NCL made the same advertising and documentation to all cruise passengers, they will ask for a class action to cover all non-suite passengers who (though they may have been lucky enough to get reservations, or may have decided they didn't even want them) were "misled" by the advertising and documents. Whether or not they actually ate or wanted to eat in the specialty restaurants is irrelevant, the theory is that they were lied to.

 

As far as damages, she is seeking the cost of her cruise and incidentals (probably things like airfare or taxi fare to the port, etc). That's typical damages for this kind of case- she's saying she would not have bought the cruise or would have selected another cruiseline or vacation or whatnot if she had known, so her damages are the amount she paid for the cruise. (That's also why the "my local restaurant wouldn't give me a reservation" comparison is a false one- in that case, you haven't spent any money!)

 

Whether it settles depends on what NCL has on hand - for instance, does it have documents where several thousand passengers complain about the reservations process and that they could not get reservations, does it have studies that show that demand for the specialty restaurants exceeds availability by 400%? If so they have to share this stuff with plaintiff in discovery and it kind of supports her case. I dont think they do (or don't) have this stuff, only NCL and its attorneys know. If they feel that there is risk, or the publicity is too much, they might settle.

 

So that brings me to my question- if they DO settle and you get a notice that you (as a member of the class action) get $50 from NCL or a $250 towards your next cruise, are you going to turn it down? ;)

[terrymtex01]

Outside of the legal outline you just gave, I still believe she would have to prove that a reasonable person would not expect to get reservations if, at the time she tried to make reservations they were full. The fact that reservations are required should tell any reasonable person that seating is limited. Again, I may be way off base, just how I feel about it.

 

Of course, I felt that way about McDonald's being sued because their coffee was hot.

 

As far as using any certificate we might get as a result of the lawsuit.. we would probably be forced to use the certificate because NCL will probably raise the cost of fare to cover this stupid action.

 

Maybe NCL should hope I get selected if it goes to a jury trial.

[soccermommy]

Well, look at it this way....pity all the poor American Airlines passengers who had major issues earlier this month...they have few rights, and probably no redress. This woman, as a cruiser, can file a lawsuit like this, and actually have it taken (somewhat) seriously! It really is better to cruise than fly!

 

All kidding aside, this is a stupid suit, but unfortunately, may be settled stupidly by giving this woman some compensation, though I hope not.

As far as taking and using a class action settlement of $50 or so pp, I probably wouldn't, though I would accept a free cruise... I have standards, you know...

[isles1]

Isles and Markf, neither of you can really mean what you have said. I have stated people who do believe everything they see or hear when paying attention to advertising may be a little frustrated, but not in a 1000,000 years can anyone really think NCL or any other line is guilty of false adverstising here. To say, it was impossible to get reservations in itself is a stretch. We do not book suites, heck we rarely have balcony cabins and only twice have we had trouble with reservations. Once we did have to ask the conciergne (spelling) to help so we could eat at Tapenyakis (again spelling) and on the Star when we tried the last night to get reservation in the Italian restaurant. How can anyone say she encountered any damages of any kind. We could all think of times where we didn't get our way.

 

Nita

All I am saying is that no one knows what the Plaintiff's claim is. How do you know if a law was violated if you do not know what law is in question here? How do you know if a right of the Plaintiff was violated if you do not know what right they are calling into question? I am not saying NCL is guilty of anything; nor can I say they did not do anything wrong. Nor, IMO, can anyone else without the complete set of facts and knowledge of the applicable laws. No one here has enough information to do anything but react with emotion. As we all know, sometimes the law does not track common sense.

 

As my initial post implied, if there is nothing more to this than someone not being able to eat where they want at the exact time they want, well, that is pretty lame. But an attorney bringing a baseless suit in Federal Court is a pretty serious thing. Which is why I am going out on a limb here to say there is more to this than not getting to eat in one of the fancier restaurants; or at least the potential damages go beyond one's unfulfilled desire for a specific meal (read: statutory damages).

[Urban trekker]

"would have selected another cruiseline '

 

How would it be any different on the other cruiseline - yes some have set dining times but I don't believe that its any different with their specialty restaurants.

 

Cheers

 

Dennis

[kontraxed]

I wouldn't ask for it but I would take it.

[BeachBumMama]

As far as what is reasonable, basically the Plaintiff will say that the NCL advertising, cruise documents, website, etc sold a cruise with a major selling point being the flexibility to eat when and where she wanted (within reason). And that it was reasonable for her to expect, based on all that stuff, that she would typically be able to get reservations in the specialty restaurants.

And again I go back to the 'basic concept' of eating where, when and with whom you want as opposed to 6:00 or 8:00. That's NCL's selling point that differentiates them from other cruise lines. That's it. That's the point. Period.

 

Take the reservation restaurants out of the equation. Pretend they don't even exist. The other restaurants are OPTIONS if one so chooses them. Merely other venues to add variety to dining. Compare them to excursions, they're extra and also require reservations and extra payment. The most popular one's will fill up quickly and it isn't reasonable to expect that a ship of 2000 passengers can fit on a 30 passenger catamaran. So I don't see how it could be reasonable to expect that 2000 passengers can fit in a 30 person capacity restaurant. Though the chances are increased because you have that option for 7 days and various times to choose. As opposed to one excursion on one day.

[WinterSky]

Despite my role as devil's advocate here, my regular job is defending companies from exactly these types of suits. And I can tell you that they can try to define the class in a way that makes everyone similar- and you don't need proof or testimony or evidence from anyone but the plaintiff, so it doesn't matter if all the other people can or cannot prove something (or even agree with the lawsuit).

 

As far as what is reasonable, basically the Plaintiff will say that the NCL advertising, cruise documents, website, etc sold a cruise with a major selling point being the flexibility to eat when and where she wanted (within reason). And that it was reasonable for her to expect, based on all that stuff, that she would typically be able to get reservations in the specialty restaurants. So she specifically selected that cruise and paid for it based at least in part on the availability of specialty restaurants that NCL had highly touted in its advertising and documents. Not because she thought she could magically eat in Paris or have baked Alaska or eat with teh captain or whatever other examples people have put up here- just that she would have a decent shot of getting reservations around the times she wanted at these restaurants that NCL was selling as a key, integrated part of their whole cruising concept that differentiated them from other cruiselines. Now, she'll say, at the same time, NCL knew that because of the capacity of the restaurants and their policy of offering advance reservations to suite guests, and perhaps the fullness of the ship, or other factors, that many passengers on this and other cruises would not be able to get reservations for the specialty restaurants either a) at all, or b) for a reasonable number of times, or c) without it being unreasonably difficult, etc. I doubt the lawsuit is about not being able to get one reservation for one restaurant at one time, but probably more about a pattern of not being able to get reservations over the entire cruise or being stuck with very limited times and locations. Because NCL knew when they sold her the cruise that this could be an issue but didn't tell her (kind of like when they say that ports are subject to change or when hotels say that nonsmoking rooms may be sold out), it was deceptive.

 

Now because NCL made the same advertising and documentation to all cruise passengers, they will ask for a class action to cover all non-suite passengers who (though they may have been lucky enough to get reservations, or may have decided they didn't even want them) were "misled" by the advertising and documents. Whether or not they actually ate or wanted to eat in the specialty restaurants is irrelevant, the theory is that they were lied to.

 

As far as damages, she is seeking the cost of her cruise and incidentals (probably things like airfare or taxi fare to the port, etc). That's typical damages for this kind of case- she's saying she would not have bought the cruise or would have selected another cruiseline or vacation or whatnot if she had known, so her damages are the amount she paid for the cruise. (That's also why the "my local restaurant wouldn't give me a reservation" comparison is a false one- in that case, you haven't spent any money!)

 

Whether it settles depends on what NCL has on hand - for instance, does it have documents where several thousand passengers complain about the reservations process and that they could not get reservations, does it have studies that show that demand for the specialty restaurants exceeds availability by 400%? If so they have to share this stuff with plaintiff in discovery and it kind of supports her case. I dont think they do (or don't) have this stuff, only NCL and its attorneys know. If they feel that there is risk, or the publicity is too much, they might settle.

 

So that brings me to my question- if they DO settle and you get a notice that you (as a member of the class action) get $50 from NCL or a $250 towards your next cruise, are you going to turn it down? ;)

 

Based on your presentation, I think it is very possible that NCL will settle, or that she may win in court. I also think that this would be really bad news for me as a consumer, as this woman's action has potential to drive up cruising costs for all of us.

 

WinterSky

[BeachBumMama]

Based on your presentation, I think it is very possible that NCL will settle, or that she may win in court.

I still can't see it and I hope they don't settle. As I mentioned in previous post, why can't this be compared to excursions? You need reservations before they fill up so there really isn't much difference about it. One can reasonably expect to get on a boat excursion, but one can also know that it's impossible to fit 2000 people on a 30 passenger catamaran. I don't see any difference in the alternative dining options and ship excursions.

[Bigdog49]

I would address this claim with simple math. The claim is it was imposible to get reservations because the penthouse passengers locked up all specialty seating before the lower cabins had a chance.

 

Let's use the Jewel worse case. All penthouses full to capacity that never happens

26 with 2 passengers

18 with 5 passengers

2 with 6 passengers

 

Total penthouse passengers 154

 

If you add up the total seats in Mamas, Bistro, Cagney's, Sushi Bar, Tagos, and Chin Chin you get 701 seats. If conservitively we only turn those seats 2 times a night that is 1401 passengers that can be handled a night. I bet the turns are more like 2.5 or 3 if needed. Even if they had one seating a night the math does not support the claim.

 

Your honor how did 154 passengers take all 1400+ seats :confused:

[mbisson]

Your honor how did 154 passengers take all 1400+ seats :confused:

 

 

Some of those pigs ate 10 times! :eek:

[Cuizer2]

Despite my role as devil's advocate here, my regular job is defending companies from exactly these types of suits. And I can tell you that they can try to define the class in a way that makes everyone similar- and you don't need proof or testimony or evidence from anyone but the plaintiff, so it doesn't matter if all the other people can or cannot prove something (or even agree with the lawsuit).

 

As far as what is reasonable, basically the Plaintiff will say that the NCL advertising, cruise documents, website, etc sold a cruise with a major selling point being the flexibility to eat when and where she wanted (within reason). And that it was reasonable for her to expect, based on all that stuff, that she would typically be able to get reservations in the specialty restaurants. So she specifically selected that cruise and paid for it based at least in part on the availability of specialty restaurants that NCL had highly touted in its advertising and documents. Not because she thought she could magically eat in Paris or have baked Alaska or eat with teh captain or whatever other examples people have put up here- just that she would have a decent shot of getting reservations around the times she wanted at these restaurants that NCL was selling as a key, integrated part of their whole cruising concept that differentiated them from other cruiselines. Now, she'll say, at the same time, NCL knew that because of the capacity of the restaurants and their policy of offering advance reservations to suite guests, and perhaps the fullness of the ship, or other factors, that many passengers on this and other cruises would not be able to get reservations for the specialty restaurants either a) at all, or b) for a reasonable number of times, or c) without it being unreasonably difficult, etc. I doubt the lawsuit is about not being able to get one reservation for one restaurant at one time, but probably more about a pattern of not being able to get reservations over the entire cruise or being stuck with very limited times and locations. Because NCL knew when they sold her the cruise that this could be an issue but didn't tell her (kind of like when they say that ports are subject to change or when hotels say that nonsmoking rooms may be sold out), it was deceptive.

 

Now because NCL made the same advertising and documentation to all cruise passengers, they will ask for a class action to cover all non-suite passengers who (though they may have been lucky enough to get reservations, or may have decided they didn't even want them) were "misled" by the advertising and documents. Whether or not they actually ate or wanted to eat in the specialty restaurants is irrelevant, the theory is that they were lied to.

 

As far as damages, she is seeking the cost of her cruise and incidentals (probably things like airfare or taxi fare to the port, etc). That's typical damages for this kind of case- she's saying she would not have bought the cruise or would have selected another cruiseline or vacation or whatnot if she had known, so her damages are the amount she paid for the cruise. (That's also why the "my local restaurant wouldn't give me a reservation" comparison is a false one- in that case, you haven't spent any money!)

 

Whether it settles depends on what NCL has on hand - for instance, does it have documents where several thousand passengers complain about the reservations process and that they could not get reservations, does it have studies that show that demand for the specialty restaurants exceeds availability by 400%? If so they have to share this stuff with plaintiff in discovery and it kind of supports her case. I dont think they do (or don't) have this stuff, only NCL and its attorneys know. If they feel that there is risk, or the publicity is too much, they might settle.

 

So that brings me to my question- if they DO settle and you get a notice that you (as a member of the class action) get $50 from NCL or a $250 towards your next cruise, are you going to turn it down? ;)

 

I am also involved in civil litigation. For the last eight years I have been handling construction defect claims. The plaintiff lawyers always file as a class action and perhaps two out of the last 800 have received class certification. The problem is, they don't all have the same damages.

 

I weigh 100 pounds. There, I lied to you. What are your damages? Lying is not a recognized civil wrong (there is no tort for lying). Look at the $54,000,000 pants suit. That was a false advertising (fraud) suit. The "gentleman" had damages. He was without his pants for one week. What did he get? Zero.

 

It would be very difficult to convince a judge or a jury that the only reason you booked the cruise was because you could eat in any restaurant when you wanted and with who you wanted. Therefore the cost of the cruise is not the damages, but rather the inconvenience of not getting your first choice of restaurant day and time. The amount that this inconvenience warrants in damages is rather minor (as I have noted in a prior post).

 

Just because things don't go your way does not mean you are entitled to damages.

 

In order to prove fraud, you have to show the defendant knew it could not deliver on its promise. That is why that idiot lost the pants case. The cleaner promised "Satisfaction Guaranteed". The court acknowledged this advertising, but ruled that no reasonable person who assume this promise had no limits. Replacement of lost pants by paying for new pants is reasonable. $54,000,000 for a pants that were misplaced for one week is not.

 

No reasonable person is going to assume that a restaurant that holds 500 people can handle 2000 requests if all the requests are made at the same time. If everyone wants the same thing at the same time, something is going to have to give. Who's fault is this? Even if you lay the blame on NCL, it is still only for the inconvenience of having to eat earlier or later or at a different restaurant. Now if they were unable to eat at all for the week, then you have a real lawsuit with some real damages. But that does not appear to be the case here. Instead, they were able to eat, just not when or where they wanted.

 

Even if you assign some damages to this inconvenience, it is only for that inconvenience. If they can convenience a judge or jury that the only reason they booked the cruise is because they could eat when and where they wanted (which I doubt), you still look at what are the expectations of a reasonable person (given that unreasonable people can honestly have unreasonable expectations).

 

Again, look at the pants suit. Even if you believe the plaintiff (who was a judge at the time - though obviously not the judge for this particular lawsuit) really believed that "Satisfaction Guaranteed" had no limits (the plaintiff was moved to tears when testifying - that's how emotional this issue was for him) the trial judge still looked at how a "reasonable" person would view this.

 

Back to the issue at hand. Would a reasonable person book a cruise based purely on the belief that (s)he could eat where and when (s)he wanted? If you answer no to this, then you cannot award the cost of the cruise as damages. Would a reasonable person believe that you can eat when and where you want has no limits? Again I would say no.

 

In advertising the law allows for a little "fluff" as long as it is not misleading. When United invites you to fly the "friendly skies of United" you are not going to get very far with a complaint that someone was not friendly with you. Nor are you going to be thrown out of court simply because such an advertisement should have warned you that someone might try to get "too friendly". Not everyone who hears "I'm going to kill you" runs to the police. We all know that most people who say this are not serious.

 

Though lawsuits such as the pants lawsuit demonstrate that the legal system is not perfect, the fact is that not everyone is "reasonable". However, not being reasonable is not enough to get your lawsuit thrown out of court. And thus when taken to an extreme, we end up with $54,000,000 pants and people who expect a free cruise because of a missed dinner date. That is life folks. Life comes with only one guarantee - death. We all have to accept the good with the bad. That includes missed dinner dates and lawsuits filed by people who had to suffer through a missed dinner date.

 

Again, I refer you to my review of the Jade (I was the first one to submit a review of the Jade). I was very disappointed about the missing BBQ chicken. So I had a little fun with that in my review. However, my agent can confirm that I was looking forward to the BBQ chicken. What do I do, sue the person who screwed up the BBQ order? What are my damages? I had to eat Italian instead of BBQ. Even I put less value on that then the time and effort to call an attorney to discuss my options.

 

Whether you are the person who missed dinner, or you are the person sick of hearing/reading about the person who missed dinner, you are just going to have to live with the fact that life isn't perfect. The lawsuit will continue, NCL's lawyers will bill NCL thousands and this lawsuit will eventually run its course, via settlement or verdict. NCL will raise its rates to cover the cost of having to defend lawsuits like this and NCL's lawyers will cruise in the Garden Villa because they just received $100,000 from NCL for defending it in all these lawsuits.

 

If it bothers you that much, either become a lawyer, apply to one of the firms NCL uses and reap the reward that come with being the top billing attorney in the firm, or run for an elected office and change the law.

 

Another option would be to move to another country which has more restrictive policies regarding frivolous lawsuits. However, you may find that while curing one problem your new country of choice has other problems, some of which don't exist in the United States because companies in the United States are afraid of being sued. As I recall, McDonalds received about 70 complaints per year from people being injured by its hot coffee. I wonder how many less people are injured per year by McDonalds hot coffee because McDonalds has lowered the holding temperature of its coffee because McDonalds does not want to get hit with punitive damages again.

[tchix]

I weigh 100 pounds. There, I lied to you. What are your damages? Lying is not a recognized civil wrong (there is no tort for lying). ....

But it is unlawful to lie (engage in any deceptive acts or practices) while doing business. At least in Florida...

 

If it bothers you that much, either become a lawyer, apply to one of the firms NCL uses and reap the reward that come with being the top billing attorney in the firm.

 

Oh, you make it sound so easy! :D Believe me, even with this lawsuit, NCL wouldn't be one of the top clients of firms that do this kind of work- we've got tobacco, pharma, and automakers who need representation too too!

 

 

 

One good thing for NCL is that in Florida they have a provision for frivolous cases where the judge can require the Plaintiff to post a bond that would cover the amount of any damages NCL might suffer on account of the lawsuit, including their attorney's fees. I guess we will have to wait and see what happens with this one.

[isles1]

One good thing for NCL is that in Florida they have a provision for frivolous cases where the judge can require the Plaintiff to post a bond that would cover the amount of any damages NCL might suffer on account of the lawsuit, including their attorney's fees. I guess we will have to wait and see what happens with this one.

The Federal Court will not look to Florida law with respect to procedural matters.

[2Cruise4Ever]

I'm hoping the judge is a reasonable person. My DH has been a cop for over 30 years and has been involved with a number of Federal civil law suites. Here's the situation. Once NCL receives the paperwork, they have either 30 or 60 days to answer (DH can't remember which). At that time, NCL lawyers will likely file for a "Motion for Summary Judgment of Acquittal." The judge will then review the case and either dismiss it or request discovery. If ruled discovery, the plaintiff will have either 30 or 60 days to answer. Then, the depositions begin. NCL lawyers will depose the plaintiff. Then, both sides will submit their respective motions (to go forward or for dismissal). The NCL lawyers will obviously file another motion for dismissal. At any rate, if the judge does not dismiss the case, this could go on for a very, very long time and cost NCL a ton of money. BUT, they have in their budget (just like all big corporations) money to cover the cost of law suits.

 

I'm hoping that the judge will just dismiss it at first chance. The burden of proof is not on the defendant, but on the plaintiff. We'll see... as others have posted, she may be able to prove her case initially. But, at that point, NCL may offer a settlement. But, it will likely only be enough to cover the cruise cost and attorney fees. I'm guessing we won't hear the final details.

[Cuizer2]

I'm hoping the judge is a reasonable person. My DH has been a cop for over 30 years and has been involved with a number of Federal civil law suites. Here's the situation. Once NCL receives the paperwork, they have either 30 or 60 days to answer (DH can't remember which). At that time, NCL lawyers will likely file for a "Motion for Summary Judgment of Acquittal." The judge will then review the case and either dismiss it or request discovery. If ruled discovery, the plaintiff will have either 30 or 60 days to answer. Then, the depositions begin. NCL lawyers will depose the plaintiff. Then, both sides will submit their respective motions (to go forward or for dismissal). The NCL lawyers will obviously file another motion for dismissal. At any rate, if the judge does not dismiss the case, this could go on for a very, very long time and cost NCL a ton of money. BUT, they have in their budget (just like all big corporations) money to cover the cost of law suits.

 

I'm hoping that the judge will just dismiss it at first chance. The burden of proof is not on the defendant, but on the plaintiff. We'll see... as others have posted, she may be able to prove her case initially. But, at that point, NCL may offer a settlement. But, it will likely only be enough to cover the cruise cost and attorney fees. I'm guessing we won't hear the final details.

 

Its been a while since I handled a Federal lawsuit, but as I recall you have 20 days to respond in a Federal case.

 

The first thing a defendant does is either file a demurrer or answer the complaint. A motion for summary judgment requires discovery. The moving party (the side filing the motion for summary judgment) has the burden of proof (whether the moving party is the defendant or the plaintiff does not matter - it is the moving party that must prove there is no factual issues). If there is any reasonable dispute of facts, the judge will deny the motion for summary judgment.

 

After both sides have completed discovery the trial will take place. After that either side could appeal. In the meantime the parties could just settle the case. NCL's interested in settling will depend on a number of factors, including, but not limited to, a business decision based on the continuing cost of defense.