Smith v. Carnival Corp.

3 Citing cases

  1. Naraine v. City of Hollywood

    No. 21-CV-60313-RAR (S.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    Accordingly, the Court will not allow Plaintiff to assert a brand-new theory of liability over a year after the deadline for amending pleadings, and will only address whether the City retaliated against Plaintiff when they failed to rehire her for the same position.See Smith v. Carnival Corp., No. 19-24352, 2021 WL 5327944, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2021) (finding Plaintiff's attempt to allege vicarious liability was untimely and prejudicial after the close of discovery and the deadline for amending the pleadings).

  2. Atkinson v. Carnival Corp.

    20-20317-CIV-MARTINEZ/AOR (S.D. Fla. Feb. 1, 2022)   Cited 2 times

    Assuming arguendo that Plaintiff has included a claim based on vicarious liability in the laundry list set forth in his single negligence claim, Plaintiff has failed to adequately identify which employee or agent was purportedly responsible for creating the alleged dangerous condition. See Reply [D.E. 74 at 6-7]; see also Smith v. Carnival Corp., No. 19-cv-24352, 2021 WL 5327944, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2021) (holding that “even if [the plaintiff] had alleged vicarious liability in his [c]omplaint, the undisputed facts preclude[d] such a claim” because the plaintiff failed to establish that the employee was acting within the scope of his employment); Hodson v. MSC Cruises, S.A., No. 20-22463-CIV, 2021 WL 3639752, at *13 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 3634809 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2021) (“Plaintiff submitted no evidence to prove the essential element of negligence by the purported employee.”).

  3. Quashen v. Carnival Corp.

    576 F. Supp. 3d 1275 (S.D. Fla. 2021)   Cited 17 times
    Applying maritime law and granting summary judgment where "Plaintiff has attempted to ‘wrap up’ her negligent supervision and training claims with her negligent maintenance claim."

    Plaintiff has never moved to amend her pleadings to include an allegation that Carnival is vicariously liable for its employee's negligent maintenance and the Court finds that Plaintiff's argument at this stage, premised on vicarious liability, is therefore "untimely and prejudicial to Defendant." Smith v. Carnival Corp. , No. 19-CV-24352, 2021 WL 5327944, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2021) (finding arguments under Yusko to be improper where no allegation of vicarious liability was included in the complaint (citing Marcia Bland v. Carnival Corp. , No. 16-cv-21592-Altonaga (S.D. Fla. Aug. 15, 2021)) ("Simply put, the Court will not allow Plaintiff to assert a brand-new theory of liability over a year after the deadline for amending pleadings."); Bahr v. NCL , No. 19-cv-22973, 2021 WL 4034575, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 3, 2021) ("If Plaintiff intended to plead negligence based upon a theory of vicarious liability, it was incumbent upon Plaintiff to make that clear.")); see alsoMonaghan v. Worldpay US, Inc. , 955 F.3d 855, 859 (11th Cir. 2020) ("[A] plaintiff cannot amend h[is] complaint through argument made in h[is] brief in opposition to [a] defendant's motion for summary judgment.") (quoting Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. United States , 716 F.3d 535, 559 (11th Cir. 2013) ).