Case 2:20-cv-04393 Document 1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:1

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES 3 4 5 RICHARD MAIAVA, No. 2:20-cv-04393 6 ROBIN MAIAVA, PAUL STODDARD and 7 VIRGINIA STODDARD 8 9 Plaintiffs, 10 v. 11 PRINCESS CRUISE LINES LTD., 12 Defendant. 13 14 COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 15 16 Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby sues Defendant, 17 PRINCESS CRUISE LINES LTD. (hereinafter, “PRINCESS”), and alleges: 18 19 THE PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 20 1. This is an action seeking damages in excess of $1,000,000.00 (One 21 Million Dollars) exclusive of interest, costs and attorney's fees. 22 2. This Court has diversity subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 23 24 U.S.C. § 1332 as this is a civil action in which the matter in controversy exceeds 25 the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens 26 27 28 1 Case 2:20-cv-04393 Document 1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:2

1 of different States and/or citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign 2 state. 3 4 3. This Court also has Admiralty subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to

5 28 U.S.C. § 1333 as this case involves a maritime tort. The type of incident and 6 injuries suffered by Plaintiffs had the potential to impact maritime commerce as 7 8 Plaintiffs are at serious risk of imminent harm as a result of being exposed to the

9 Coronavirus running rampant aboard the upon which they are paying 10 passengers. 11 12 4. Plaintiff, RICHARD MAIAVA is sui juris, is a resident of Honolulu

13 County, , and was a passenger onboard the Ruby Princess. 14 5. Plaintiff, ROBIN MAIAVA is sui juris, is a resident of Honolulu 15 16 County, Hawaii, and was a passenger onboard the Ruby Princess.

17 6. Plaintiff, PAUL STODDARD is sui juris, is a resident of Honolulu 18 County, Hawaii, and was a passenger onboard the Ruby Princess. 19 20 7. Plaintiff, VIRGINIA STODDARD is sui juris, is a resident of

21 Honolulu County, Hawaii and was a passenger onboard the Ruby Princess. 22 8. Princess Cruise Lines LTD. is incorporated in Bermuda, with its 23 24 headquarters in Santa Clarita California. The action is being filed in this Court

25 pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Passenger Contract issued by 26 Defendant, Princess Cruise Lines Ltd. 27 28 2 Case 2:20-cv-04393 Document 1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 10 Page ID #:3

1 9. At all times hereto, PRINCESS owned and operated the cruise ship the 2 Ruby Princess. 3 4 10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over PRINCESS as PRINCESS’

5 principle place of business is located in Los Angeles County, Los Angeles. 6 11. Plaintiffs, RICHARD MAIAVA and ROBIN MAIAVA, were 7 8 passengers aboard the Ruby Princess which departed out of , Australia on

9 March 8, 2020 and had to return 3 days early on March 19, 2020, as a result of an 10 outbreak of COVID-19. 11 12 12. Plaintiffs, PAUL STODDARD and VIRGINIA STODDARD, were

13 passengers aboard the Ruby Princess which departed out of Sydney, Australia on 14 March 8, 2020 and had to return 3 days early on March 19, 2020, where they 15 16 remained quarantined at a lodge until they returned home on March 21, 2020

17 FACTUAL BACKROUND 18 In the recent months, there has been a worldwide outbreak of a new strain of 19 20 the Corona virus, commonly known as COVID-19. The virus began in China in

21 December 2019, and has quickly spread throughout Asia, Europe and most 22 recently, North America. The virus causes temperature, a dry cough, and can be 23 24 fatal. There have been over One Hundred Thousand cases worldwide and over

25 Three Thousand deaths as result of COVID-19. Those fatalities have largely been 26 amongst the elderly population, and those with underlying medical complications. 27 28 3 Case 2:20-cv-04393 Document 1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 4 of 10 Page ID #:4

1 COVID-19 really gained the attention of the public when the Diamond 2 Princess cruise ship, also owned and operated by Defendant, suffered an outbreak 3 4 of the disease at the beginning of February 2020 in Yokohama, Japan. The

5 outbreak began with ten cases, and rapidly multiplied to seven hundred cases, as a 6 result of the flawed two week quarantine on the ship. The Center for Disease 7 8 Control, (CDC) issued a statement on February 18, 2020, that “the rate of new

9 reports of positives new on board, (), especially among those 10 without symptoms, highlights the high burden of infection on the ship and potential 11 12 for ongoing risk.” Seven of Defendant’s passengers died as a result of COVID-19.

13 Subsequently, suffered two additional outbreaks on the 14 sailings of February 11, 2020 and February 21, 2020 out of San 15 16 Francisco, resulting in more than four deaths and hundreds of infections to its

17 passengers and crew members. Despite having experienced three major outbreaks 18 on its ships, Princess Cruises kept sailing out of various ports of call around the 19 20 world, including the Ruby Princess ship which sailed out of Sydney, Australia on

21 March 8, 2020. 22 Princess Cruises decided to sail on March 8, 2020, despite their knowledge of 23 24 the significant risk of harm to their passengers and crew members, in light of their

25 three prior voyages on other ships that resulted in outbreaks of the disease in 26 catastrophic proportions. More importantly, Princess Cruises experienced an 27 28 outbreak of COVID-19 on the Ruby Princess on the sailing just prior to the March 4 Case 2:20-cv-04393 Document 1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 5 of 10 Page ID #:5

1 8, 2020 voyage, and yet they recklessly decided to board another three thousand 2 passengers on March 8, 2020, and put their lives at risk. 3 4 COUNT I

5 (NEGLIGENCE AGAINST PRINCESS) 6 Plaintiffs re-allege all allegations in paragraphs 1 through 12 above as if alleged 7 8 fully herein. 9 13. PRINCESS owed Plaintiffs, who are paying passengers who boarded 10 11 the Ruby Princess on March 8, 2020, the duty to ensure that they would not be

12 exposed to unreasonable risk of harm that defendant knew or should have known 13 about while sailing on its vessel. 14 15 14. Defendant breached its duty in that it suffered a COVID-19 outbreak

16 on the voyage just prior to the March 8, 2020 sailing, and yet it made the conscious 17 decision to continue sailing the voyage that began on March 8, 2020, with another 18 19 three thousand passengers on an infected ship. 20 15. Specifically, Defendant was aware of the outbreak, and went as far as 21 to provide vouchers to the passengers to buy lunch, while they delayed the sailing 22 23 for six hours so that they could further disinfect the ship prior to sailing. 24 16. In continuing to sail with another three thousand passengers including 25 Plaintiffs on March 8, 2020, knowing that the ship and crew had already been 26 27 28 5 Case 2:20-cv-04393 Document 1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 6 of 10 Page ID #:6

1 exposed to COVID-19, the Defendant PRINCESS has exposed Plaintiffs to actual 2 risk of immediate physical injury. 3 4 17. Defendant is further negligent in failing to have proper screening

5 protocols for COVID-19 prior to boarding the passengers on Plaintiffs’ voyage, 6 despite their experience of outbreaks on multiple ships prior to the March 8, 2020 7 8 sailing, including the outbreak on the subject ship just one week prior.

9 18. To add insult to injury, the Defendant PRINCESS was aware of an 10 outbreak of COVID-19 on the March 8, 2020 sailing, and failed to even attempt to 11 12 quarantine any of the passengers onboard. They didn’t even bother to notify the

13 passengers that there was an actual outbreak, allowing the sailing to continue as if it 14 were a normal cruise, up until the time it returned to Australia three days early. 15 16 19. As a result of the Defendant’s lackadaisical approach to the safety of

17 Plaintiffs, its passengers and crew aboard the Ruby Princess, Plaintiffs were 18 exposed to the actual risk of immediate physical injury. 19 20 20. Finally, Defendant PRINCESS is negligent in failing to adequately

21 warn Plaintiffs about the potential exposure to COVID-19 prior to boarding the ship 22 on March 8, 2020, and again during the sailing of said cruise. Defendant had actual 23 24 knowledge of passengers and crew members with symptoms of coronavirus during

25 the March 8, 2020 sailing and failed to inform Plaintiffs at any time prior to 26 boarding or while they were already onboard, that they were exposed to 27 28 COVID-19. 6

Case 2:20-cv-04393 Document 1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 7 of 10 Page ID #:7

1 21. If Plaintiffs had knowledge of this actual risk of exposure prior to 2 boarding, they would have never boarded the ship, and they would’ve boarded the 3 4 first flight out of Australia and returned home. Due to Defendant’s outright

5 negligence in failing to warn Plaintiffs of the actual risk of exposure to COVID-19 6 aboard its infected ship, Plaintiffs disembarked early and Plaintiffs’ RICHRD 7 8 STODDARD and VIRGINIA STODDARD were quarantined in a lodge for two

9 days, anxiously awaiting their fate, until they returned home to Hawaii where they 10 remained quarantined in their homes. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 22. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned negligence of 25 the Defendant PRINCESS, in exposing them to actual risk of immediate physical 26 injury, Plaintiffs are suffering from emotional distress, and are traumatized from the 27 28 7

Case 2:20-cv-04393 Document 1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 8 of 10 Page ID #:8

1 fear of developing COVID-19, and this emotional harm will continue to plague 2 them. 3 4 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant PRINCESS

5 for damages suffered as result of their negligence and a trial by jury on all issues 6 triable. 7

8 COUNT II 9 (GROSS NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANT PRINCESS) 10 11 Plaintiff re-alleges all allegations set out in paragraphs 1 through 22 above as if

12 alleged fully herein. 13 14 23. Defendant Princess’ conduct in deciding to continue to sail the Ruby 15 Princess with Plaintiffs, knowing that the ship was infected from a prior voyage and 16 prior crew members who came down with symptoms of COVID-19, on board with 17 18 plaintiffs, shows a lack of any care on the part of Defendant, amounting to gross 19 negligence. Defendant knew how dangerous it was to expose Plaintiffs and the rest 20 21 of its passengers to COVID-19 in light of its experience with the Diamond Princess 22 and two sailings on the Grand Princess, and yet it departed from what a reasonably 23 careful cruise line would do under the circumstances in continuing to sail with 24 25 Plaintiffs. 26 24. Moreover, Defendant’s conduct in failing to warn Plaintiffs of their 27 actual risk of harm in being exposed to COVID-19, either prior to boarding or 28 8 Case 2:20-cv-04393 Document 1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 9 of 10 Page ID #:9

1 while they were already onboard, in light of prior passengers and crew members, 2 who came down with symptoms from the prior voyage, amounts to an extreme 3 4 departure of a what a reasonably careful cruise line would do, in light of that fact

5 that Plaintiffs, one of which is elderly. 6 25. Defendant PRINCESS chose to place profits over the safety of its 7 8 passengers, crew and the general public in continuing to operate business as usual,

9 despite their knowledge of the actual risk of injury to Plaintiffs, one of which is 10 elderly and three of which suffer from underlying health conditions. 11 12 26. Defendant PRINCESS chose to place profits over the safety of its

13 passengers, crew and the general public in continuing to operate business as usual, 14 despite their knowledge of the actual risk of injury to Plaintiffs, one of which is 15 16 elderly and three of which suffer from underlying health conditions.

17 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against PRINCESS 18 including punitive damages suffered as a result of the alleged gross negligence on 19 20 Defendant, and a trial by jury on all issues triable.

21 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 22 The Plaintiffs hereby demand trial by jury of all issues so triable of right. 23 DATED this 15th day of May, 2020. 24 25 Michael A. Simmrin SIMMRIN LAW GROUP 26 3500 W. Olive Avenue 27 Suite 300 Burbank, CA 91505 28 9 Case 2:20-cv-04393 Document 1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 10 of 10 Page ID #:10

1 Tel.: (954) 476-1000 2 Fax: (424) 653-6564

3 By ______4 MICHAEL A. SIMMRIN California Bar No. 238092 5 6 Debi F. Chalik (Pro Hac Vice Pending) 7 CHALIK AND CHALIK, P.A. 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff 10063 N. W. 1st Court 9 Plantation, Florida 33324 10 Tel.: (954) 476-1000 Fax: (954) 472-1173 11 12 By ______DEBI F. CHALIK 13 Florida Bar No. 179566 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10