Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. v. Ean-Hui Ooi
An Australian cruise passenger injured in the White Island volcano eruption sued Royal Caribbean in Miami; Royal Caribbean moved to dismiss for improper venue under a forum selection clause in a passenger ticket contract between the plaintiff and RCL, a separate UK affiliate. The Third DCA affirmed denial of the motion without an evidentiary hearing, holding the clause unambiguously bound only its signatories (RCL and the passenger) and that Royal Caribbean's affidavits raised no relevant factual dispute. The court also held Royal Caribbean waived its non-signatory-enforcement theory by not raising it below.
Key facts
- Australian cruise passenger injured in White Island volcano eruption sued Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. in Miami; Royal Caribbean moved to dismiss for improper venue based on a forum selection clause in a passenger ticket contract signed by the passenger and RCL, a UK affiliate of Royal Caribbean.
- Trial court denied Royal Caribbean's motion to dismiss; Royal Caribbean appealed, arguing the forum selection clause should bind it as a non-signatory and that an evidentiary hearing was required.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
Useful to litigators resisting enforcement of forum selection clauses by corporate affiliates who did not sign the contract, and for the proposition that an evidentiary hearing on a venue motion is unnecessary where… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.