Wrongful Death Suit Over Guest's Beating at Mexican Resort to Stay in Miami, Court Rules
Family of Joseph Jose sued after a guest who'd been drinking heavily beat him to death. But Mexican hotel company Palace Resorts Inc. argued Miami was the wrong place for a legal dispute.
May 07, 2019 at 01:22 PM
4 minute read
Gary E. Davidson of Diaz Reus & Targ in Miami warded off two attempts to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit against Mexican hotel conglomerate Palace Resorts Inc., after a guest from Texas was beaten to death by a drunk man at one of its hotels in Cancun.
Palace Resorts argued Miami was an improper venue for the suit, and claimed its forum selection clause mandated legal action in Mexico. But Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Jennifer Bailey disagreed.
In the early hours of March 14, 2014, a security guard found Joseph Jose face down on a concrete walkway at the Moon Palace Golf & Spa Resort while Mexican citizen Gabriel Trinidad Jimenez sat on top of him, smashing his head in the concrete. Jose was already dead — overpowered by cranial fractures and contusions, according to the wrongful death lawsuit his family filed in 2016.
Jimenez was later convicted. He had been a guest at the hotel but had spent the night working for a Mexican PepsiCo distributor, sponsoring an event at the resort's nightclub. The company had paid for his stay and expenses, and presented him with an award that night, according to the complaint.
Jose also went to the nightclub as part of a guided tour, but never made it back to his room. Plaintiff's lawyer Davidson said he plans to piece together what happened using video footage recorded in the hours before the attack.
|Click here to read the complaint
Jimenez was convicted of murder and imprisoned in Mexico. But Jose's family also blamed Moon Palace, which was no stranger to violent incidents, according to the lawsuit. The complaint claimed staff should have controlled Jimenez's alcohol consumption and escorted him to his room, but instead left him to wander the resort “with deadly consequences.”
“This is a very tragic situation,” Davidson said. “This family has lost a young man and a very successful and wonderful human being. It's torn the family apart.”
The suit also pointed the finger at PepsiCo and four affiliates for allegedly failing to keep staff in check. Employees weren't allowed to get drunk, according to the complaint, yet the soda distributor hosted an all-day drinking event that saw Jimenez get so drunk he couldn't remember what happened. That claim settled confidentially.
Defense attorneys Trevor G. Hawes and David Caballero of Cole, Scott & Kissane in Jacksonville and Miami did not immediately respond to requests for comment, but Palace Resorts has denied any wrongdoing or liability. It filed two motions to dismiss, arguing that the case was blocked by a forum selection clause and didn't belong in Miami.
But Bailey wasn't convinced. The judge ruled the plaintiff had never seen a copy of the forum selection clause. She also found Palace Resorts has actively expanded outside its Mexico base, had created corporate headquarters in Florida and was getting many of its customers from the U.S. The judge also criticized “vague and unintelligible” testimony for the defense.
“The court was troubled by the lack of transparency in many of the answers provided by the defendants' witnesses and failure to answer basic questions,” Bailey wrote.
The court based its ruling on a 2013 Florida Supreme Court decision, Cortez v. Palace Resorts — another case Davidson brought against the same defendant. In that suit, Davidson's California client sued Palace Resorts after being raped at the same hotel. The courts supported the defense's claim that Miami was an inconvenient forum, until Florida justices reversed the dismissal and changed state law.
Davidson said he'll seek millions in economic damages, as Jose was a young, well-paid business executive.
“He could have been running one of the top Fortune 500 companies within a decade, and it's all gone,” Davidson said. “But the family would be delighted to not receive a penny if they could bring their father and husband back.”
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJury Finds Dentons, Ex-Partner Beats Malpractice Claim Over $54 Million Currency Deal
3 minute readZero-Dollar Verdict: Which of Florida's Largest Firms Lost?
Trump's Lawyers Speak Out: 'The President Had the Confidence to Retain Me'
Florida Supreme Court Clarifies Qualifications for Court-Appointed Arbitrators
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Midsize Texas Firm Kane Russell Takes Another Step Toward Second-Generation Leadership With New CFO
- 2Governor's Chief Legal Counsel Is Newest Magistrate in Chancery
- 3JPMorgan, Tesla Call Off $162M Stock Warrant Case
- 4FDA Defends Rejection of Vape-Flavor Applications Before Sympathetic Supreme Court
- 5Ex-CEO Michael Jeffries Sues Abercrombie, Claiming Company Must Cover Legal Fees in Sex Trafficking Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250