Watt v. Holland America Line NV

[5] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE [7] 8 LORRIE WATT, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00155-RSL 9 Plaintiff, v. [10] 11 HAL ANTILLEN N.V., et al., ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 12 Defendants. [14] This matter comes before the Court on the “Holland America Defendants’ Rule [15] 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint” (Dkt. # 22 1) and “Defendant, OSW’s, [16] Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint” (Dkt. # 24). Plaintiff alleges that [17] 18 she was a passenger on the cruise ship MS. NIEUW AMSTERDAM on February 23, 19 2023, when she was sexually assaulted by Gede Sukrantara, a member of the crew. The [20] assault took place in the navigable waters of the United States during a massage at the [21] ship’s Greenhouse Spa & Salon. Plaintiff emailed an unidentified Holland America entity [22] 23 when she returned home from the cruise and advised it of the assault. A week later, she [25] 26 1 Only two of the four Holland America defendants, namely HAL Antillen N.V. and Holland America Line N.V., have sought dismissal. ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH 1 received a boilerplate communication stating “sorry to learn that you were disappointed on [2] your experience aboard” but we “hope that despite the issues you encountered we’ll have [3] an opportunity to welcome you back on board.” Plaintiff alleges that Holland America [4] 5 failed to report the sexual assault to the F.B.I. as it was required to do. Based on these 6 allegations, plaintiff asserts claims of negligence and strict liability. The moving [7] defendants seek dismissal of all claims against them because the complaint is an [8] impermissible shotgun pleading. They also seek dismissal of the negligence claim because [9] 10 if fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 11 The question for the Court on a motion to dismiss is whether the facts alleged in the [12] complaint sufficiently state a “plausible” ground for relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 13 U.S. 544 , 570 (2007). In the context of a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules [14] 15 of Civil Procedure, the Court must “accept factual allegations in the complaint as true and 16 construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Manzarek v. St. [17] Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). The [18] Court’s review is generally limited to the contents of the complaint. Campanelli v. [19] Bockrath, 100 F.3d 1476, 1479 (9th Cir. 1996). “We are not, however, required to accept [20] 21 as true allegations that contradict exhibits attached to the Complaint or matters properly [22] subject to judicial notice, or allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted [23] deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 24 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). [26] ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH 1 To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must allege 2 “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” []Twombly, 550 U.S. [at 570]. A plausible claim includes “factual content [3] that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is 4 liable for the misconduct alleged.” U.S. v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). [5] Under the pleading standards of Rule 8(a)(2), a party must make a “short and 6 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). . . . A complaint “that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’” [8] Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Thus, 9 “conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss.” Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th [10] Cir. 2004). [11] 12 Benavidez v. Cty. of San Diego, 993 F.3d 1134 , 1144–45 (9th Cir. 2021). If the complaint 13 fails to state a cognizable legal theory or fails to provide sufficient facts to support a claim, [14] dismissal is appropriate. Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035 , [15] 1041 (9th Cir. 2010). [16] 17 Having reviewed the complaint and the memoranda submitted by the parties, the 18 Court finds as follows: [19] 1. Shotgun pleading [20] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint contain a “short [21] 22 and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Pleadings 23 that seek to overwhelm defendants with an unclear mass of allegations and make it [24] difficult to impossible for the defendants to make informed responses to the plaintiff’s [25] allegations are considered ‘shotgun’ pleadings.” A.B. v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc., [26] ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH [1] 484 F. Supp. 3d 921 , 943 (D. Or. 2020). Another type of shotgun pleading groups multiple [2] defendants together and fails to set out which of the defendants is accused of which [3] conduct. A complaint that alleges “everyone did everything” and prevents defendants from [4] 5 understanding the nature of the claims asserted against each of them cannot survive a 6 motion to dismiss. Destfino v. Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2011). See Martin v. [7] Washington State Dep't of Corr., No. C20-0311-JCC-MAT, 2021 WL 511205 , at *2 (W.D. [8] Wash. Feb. 11, 2021). Finally, a complaint may be an impermissible shotgun pleading if it [9] 10 recites a collection of general factual allegations at the outset but fails to connect those 11 facts to the elements comprising plaintiff’s causes of action, instead simply incorporating [12] every antecedent allegation by reference. If such incorporation denies defendants adequate [13] notice of the allegations supporting each cause of action, it is impermissible. See Lackey v. [14] 15 Ray Klein, Inc., No. C19-590-RSM, 2019 WL 3716454 , at *5 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 7, 2019); 16 Hoffman v. Transworld Sys. Incorporated, No. C18-1132-JCC, 2018 WL 5734641 at *4 [17] (W.D. Wash. Nov. 2, 2018); Sollberger v. Wachovia Sec., LLC, No. SACV 0918 0766AGANX, 2010 WL 2674456 , at *4 (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2010). [19] The moving defendants argue that plaintiff’s complaint is an impermissible shotgun [20] 21 pleading for all three reasons. The presentation of three pages worth of facts is not [22] overwhelming, nor does their incorporation into the two causes of action hide the nature of [23] or basis for the claims asserted. Defendants are correct, however, that the repeated use of [24] the undifferentiated word “defendants” or phrase “Holland America” is confusing in light [25] 26 of the allegations and claims. Although plaintiff has sued four separate Holland America ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH 1 entities, she describes only three of them, namely Holland America Line N.V., Holland [2] America Line, Inc., and Holland America Line-USA, Inc.. Plaintiff alleges that all three of [3] these entities (a) operated the vessel on which she was assaulted, (b) employed Ms. [4] 5 Sukrantara, and (c) had responsibility for hiring, training, and supervising Ms. Sukrantara. 6 Dkt. # 1 at ¶¶ 1.2-1.4. No mention is made of defendant HAL Antillen N.V. LLC, and the [7] only information provided about defendant OneSpa World (Bahamas) Ltd. is that it is [8] incorporated in both the Bahamas and Florida. In this context, use of the term “defendants” [9] 10 to identify the entities that conduct substantial business in the State of Washington (Dkt. 11 # 1 at ¶ 2.22) and/or breached a duty owed to plaintiff (Dkt. # 1 at ¶ 4.2) would force [12] defendants to guess what each of them is supposed to have done. Similarly, the use of the [13] phrase “Holland America” to identify the recipient of plaintiff’s email (Dkt. # 1 at ¶ 3.14) [14] 15 and the entity that employed Ms. Sukrantara (Dkt. # 1 at ¶ 3.17) deprives the four Holland 16 America defendants and OneSpa World of adequate notice of the allegations against each [17] of them and is therefore impermissible. [18] 2. Negligence Claim [19] The elements of a negligence claim under maritime law are duty, breach, causation, [20] 21 and damages. See W. Towboat Co. v. Vigor Marine LLC, 544 F. Supp. 3d 1100 , 1125 [22] (W.D. Wash. 2021). In determining whether the owner of a cruise ship owes a duty of [23] care, if the condition at issue is not unique to the maritime context, “a carrier must have [24] actual or constructive notice of the risk-creating condition before it can be held liable.” [25] 26 Samuels v. Holland Am. Line-USA Inc., 656 F.3d 948, 953 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH 1 quotation marks and citations omitted). Plaintiff’s complaint does not plausibly allege [2] notice, either actual or constructive. In fact, the allegations suggest that one or more of the [3] Holland America entities first learned that Ms. Sukrantara posed a danger two weeks after [4] 5 the assault occurred. That one or more of the Holland America entities responded with a 6 form letter and failed to contact the F.B.I. may, as plaintiff argues, show “an appalling [7] indifference to [the] occurrence and seriousness” of the assault, but it does not raise a [8] plausible inference of prior notice. Dkt. # 34 at 8. At this stage of the litigation, plaintiff [9] 10 has the burden of alleging facts from which the Court can plausibly infer an entitlement to 11 relief: in the absence of an allegation of actual or constructive notice of the risk Ms. [12] Sukrantara posed, the complaint is insufficient. [14] 15 For all of the foregoing reasons, the motions to dismiss filed by HAL Antillen N.V., 16 Holland America Line N.V., and OneSpa World are GRANTED. The claims asserted [17] against those three entities are hereby DISMISSED. Plaintiff shall have twenty-one days [18] from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint that remedies the deficiencies [19] identified herein. [22] Dated this 7th day of October, 2024. [24] Robert S. Lasnik 25 United States District Judge [26] ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH