MOSCOW, September 16 (RAPSI, Ingrid Burke) – Citing the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a US federal court granted a motion last week to dismiss a complaint filed by a Costa Concordia crew member who was injured when the cruise ship infamously capsized off the Italian coastline in 2012.

According to a statement released by the Carnival Corporation & PLC in the disaster’s direct aftermath, the Costa Concordia departed from Civitavecchia, Italy on January 13, 2012 with approximately 3,200 passengers and 1,000 crew members on board. Around 10pm local time, the vessel hit a rock near the coastline of Isola del Giglio, causing “significant damage.” At the time, the number of casualties remained unknown. In the following weeks, reports emerged that 32 people had lost their lives in the crash.

Plaintiff Gary Lobaton claimed to have been injured while serving as a crew member on the ill-fated cruise ship in January 2012. According to the order, Lobaton sought to represent a class of similarly situated plaintiffs in his complaint.

Lobaton alleged that “the ship’s captain operated the vessel recklessly, delayed the evacuation process, and failed to ensure that that process was conducted safely.” He further argued that the defendants – including Carnival Corporation, Carnival PLC, Costa Crociere, SpA, and various others referred to simply as John Does – “contributed to the accident by pressuring the captain to sail dangerously close to shore for publicity purposes.”

Notably, the plaintiffs and defendants represent a wide range of jurisdictions. Lobaton asserted Peruvian residency. According to his complaint, Carnival Corporation was incorporated in Panama; Carnival PLC in the UK; and Costa Crociere, SpA in Italy.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, proposing that Italy would be a superior jurisdictional option. In support of the motion, the defendants raised the theory of forum non conveniens, a legal doctrine that allows a US court to dismiss a claim that it would normally have jurisdiction over “if it best serves the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice.”

The defendants indicated that if Lobaton were to submit the complaint to an Italian court within 120 days, they would accept service and submit to jurisdiction there; submit to the Italian courts’ requests for the production of witnesses and documents; respect the tolling of limitations periods; and accept any post-appeal final judgment. The court thus found that the defendants had satisfied the forum non conveniens requirement that defendants must be amenable to process in the alternate proposed jurisdiction.

Lobaton had argued that the forum would be inconvenient due to a lack of available remedies. Specifically, he claimed that as a worker, in the Italian courts he would be unable to avail himself of class action procedures available to him in the US. Citing US case law, however, the order explained: “An alternative forum is not considered inadequate merely because of the absence of class action procedures for the plaintiff’s action.”

Finding that the Italian courts had proven adequate in similar cases, the court held that they were appropriate as an alternative forum.

The court then considered the competing private and public interest factors implicated in the choice of forum between the American and Italian courts, finding that the balance fell in the latter’s favor. In part, the court explained, “The court finds that Italy’s multiple specific contacts with the parties and occurrences at issue create an interest in the present claim that significantly outweighs this forum’s interest in oversight of the wholly foreign activities of entities registered to do business here.”