Pablo Membreno

The plaintiff Pablo Membreno was a citizen of Honduras, who worked as an oiler on the ships owned by Costa Crociere, S. p. A (Costa), which was an Italian company whose headquarters were in Genoa, Italy. Costa fully owned another company Carnival Corporation, panama. Carnival Corporation was operating in Miami, Florida. Costa had no land – based offices in the United States. Membreno was hired on contract by Cruise Ships Catering & Service International, N. V. (CSCS), Netherlands Antilles, to work onboard Costa Atlantica, which began its cruise from Fort Lauderdale, Florida.While the ship was in international waters, Membreno injured his wrist in the course of his work. The plaintiff claimed that despite having reported the matter to the supervisor and the ship’s doctor, he had not been given medical treatment. Five days later, his contract was completed and he disembarked from the ship. In Honduras a surgeon diagnosed Membreno with Kinnock’s disease and recommen ded surgery. Membreno sought a second opinion in Miami from an orthopedic surgeon, who performed surgery on the plaintiff’s wrist.He also received physical therapy. Procedural History: Membreno filed a case in the Southern District Court of Florida seeking redress for his damage. The number of defendants in the case was four but later reduced to two upon a consensus of the parties to the case. Costa and CSCS invoked the doctrine of forum non conveniens to move the court for a dismissal. The district court dismissed the case and Membreno appealed in the Eleventh Circuit Court. Issues legal question:The legal issues raised were whether or not the plaintiff could seek redressal in US courts for an injury that had occurred in international waters, the area of applicability of the Jones Act and the General Maritime Laws and whether such actions could be dismissed on the grounds of forum non conveniens. Broad holding: The Jones Act and the General Maritime Laws apply only within th e territorial waters of the United States and the plaintiff will be precluded from filing suit at the location of a subsidiary company. Narrow holding:The district court rejected the application of the plaintiff seeking redress on the basis that he was injured in the international waters and the Florida company was merely a subsidiary company. Doctrinal Reasoning: In Szumlicz v. Norwegian Am. Line, Inc the court had held that if the laws of the United States were not applicable, then the action should be dismissed on the grounds of forum non conveniens (Szumlicz v Norwegian Am. Line, Inc, 1983). In Lauritzen v. Larsen, the Supreme Court laid down a set of eight factors to be satisfied.These factors are the place of the wrongful act, the national flag under which the ship was sailing, the domicile of the injured party, the dwelling place of the ship owner, the location where the parties had entered into the agreement, the approachability of a foreign forum, the law of the forum and t he place of operations of the ship owner (Lauritzen v. Larsen, 1953 ). In the present case, six conditions had been in the favor of the defendants and as such the defendants had argued that the United States law was not applicable to the plaintiff.Policy Reasoning: The district court had properly interpreted and applied the doctrine of forum non conveniens in this case and the Eleventh Circuit Court upheld the decision of the district court. Miscellaneous: There was no difference of opinion between the presiding judges and the decision was unanimous. References Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U. S. 571 (1953 ). Szumlicz v Norwegian Am. Line, Inc, 698F. 2d 1192 (11th Circuit Court 1983).