Kersha Leanie Lampson Hodgson worked as a Sales Associate aboard the M/V Celebrity Silhouette, hired by International Cruise Shops, Ltd. but supervised and directed by Starboard Cruise Services, Inc. and, through Starboard's supervisor, ultimately by Celebrity. According to the complaint, on September 11, 2022, she was ordered to lift and carry numerous heavy boxes on a repetitive basis without proper equipment such as a trolley. When she lifted one of the last boxes, she allegedly felt sharp lower back pain and began experiencing menstrual bleeding and abdominal pain. The complaint alleges the ship's infirmary diagnosed her with endometriosis and dysmenorrhea but ignored her back complaints and returned her to full duty. After being medically disembarked and repatriated to Nicaragua, a physician allegedly diagnosed her with grade 4 endometriosis, found she had not reached maximum medical improvement, and recommended a complete hysterectomy — a procedure Hodgson did not want to undergo. She alleges that despite less invasive options being available, defendants refused to offer any procedure other than a hysterectomy.
Hodgson sued Starboard, Celebrity Cruise Line, Inc., International Cruise Shops, Ltd., and Celebrity Silhouette, Inc. in the Southern District of Florida, asserting Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, maintenance and cure, and failure to provide prompt and adequate medical care — twelve counts in all — along with a demand for punitive damages.
Judge Beth Bloom held that Counts I through III, the Jones Act negligence claims, constituted the third type of shotgun pleading identified by the Eleventh Circuit in Weiland v. Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office: failing to separate each cause of action into a distinct count. Each of the three negligence counts lumped together at least three distinct theories of liability — failure to provide a reasonably safe working environment, failure to instruct and train crewmembers, and failure to implement safe and reasonable work methods — and listed the same thirty alleged breaches against each defendant. Courts in the Southern District of Florida have consistently required that distinct theories of maritime negligence be pled in separate counts, and Judge Bloom applied that rule here.
On service of process, the court held that Celebrity Cruise Line, Inc. and Celebrity Silhouette, Inc. were not properly served. CT Corporation rejected service for Celebrity because it is the registered agent for Celebrity Cruises, Inc., not Celebrity Cruise Line, Inc. It rejected service for the vessel defendant because it is not that entity's registered agent at all; defendants' Certificate of Interested Parties clarified that the vessel is wholly owned by RCL Celebrity Ships LLC, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. Judge Bloom rejected Hodgson's argument that the naming discrepancy was a mere misnomer, holding that the difference between Celebrity Silhouette and RCL Celebrity Ships LLC is not trivial. The court also rejected Hodgson's argument that CT Corporation's rejection letters were inadmissible hearsay, noting that Hodgson offered no legal or factual support for that proposition, and relied on the letters as part of its factual findings on service.
Both motions to dismiss were granted. Hodgson has until April 14, 2026, to file an amended complaint, and the court ordered that if she references her employment agreement in the amended pleading, she must attach it.