Lieff Cabraser Files First Class Action Over Quarantined Grand Princess Cruise Ship
The class action, also filed by Mary Alexander & Associates, joins at least half a dozen individual suits brought by passengers of the cruise, after which 21 people tested positive for the coronavirus and two of them died.
April 08, 2020 at 08:51 PM
3 minute read
The first class action filed over the Grand Princess cruise ship quarantined last month off the coast of California hit the courts on Wednesday, alleging gross negligence in exposing more than 2,000 passengers to the coronavirus.
The class action joins at least half a dozen individual lawsuits already filed against Princess Cruise Lines Ltd. over its handling of the voyage, after which 21 passengers and crew tested positive for the coronavirus and two died.
"Carnival and Princess should simply have told incoming passengers about the known presence of coronavirus on its ships, and the Grand Princess in particular," said Elizabeth Cabraser, of San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, which filed the lawsuit in the Northern District of California with Mary Alexander, of Mary Alexander & Associates in San Francisco. "Instead, because of Defendants' choices, the passengers were led unknowingly onto a ship where they would be unavoidably mingling in close quarters with over 1,000 other people already exposed to and potentially infected with COVID-19."
Princess Cruise Lines said in a statement, "Princess Cruises has been sensitive to the difficulties the COVID-19 outbreak has caused to our guests and crew. Our response throughout this process has focused on the well-being of our guests and crew within the parameters dictated to us by the government agencies involved and the evolving medical understanding of this new illness. We do not comment on any pending litigation."
Last month, Princess Cruise said it would "voluntarily pause global operations" of its 18 cruise ships from March 12 to May 10.
The Grand Princess left San Francisco on Feb. 21 for Hawaii. The lawsuit alleges that Princess Cruise failed to adequately screen passengers and crew, quarantine those with the coronavirus or implement procedures for social distancing and disinfecting. The company also knew that the Grand Princess had sailed from San Francisco to Mexico on an earlier voyage, during which at least three passengers reported COVID-19 symptoms, yet chose to allow 62 of the same passengers and more than 1,000 crew members to remain on board for the Hawaii excursion.
Also, the suit notes, about 700 cases of coronavirus broke out on another of its cruise ships, the Diamond Princess, quarantined off the coast of Japan. Seven of those passengers died, including two before the Grand Princess' departure to Hawaii. Australian authorities also have launched a criminal investigation into another of its cruise ships, the Ruby Princess, which sailed between Australia and New Zealand. More than 600 passengers on that ship have tested positive for the coronavirus, 10 of whom died.
Nine passengers of the Hawaii cruise, all from California, filed the class action against Princess Cruise and its parent company, Carnival Corp., and another subsidiary, Fairline Shipping International Corp. Ltd., the vessel's owner. One of the named plaintiffs was diagnosed and treated for coronavirus.
The suit seeks damages for medical costs and emotional distress, plus punitive damages.
|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 All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute read‘It's Your Funeral’: On Avoiding Damaging Your Client’s Case With Uncivil Behavior
Practice Tips From—and About—the New Judges on the Northern District of California Bench
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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