Toddler Death Law Suit Update

[S.A.M.J.R.]

26 minutes ago, TNcruising02 said:

Docket last updated: 12 hours ago

Wednesday, February 26, 2020
31		respm Response in Opposition to Motion Wed 02/26 1:07 PM  RESPONSE in Opposition re30 Amended MOTION TO DISMISS1 Complaint,28 Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim,,, Order on Motion to Compel,,, Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer,,, Order on Motion to Strike,,, Order on Motion f filed by Kimberly Schultz-Wiegand, Alan Wiegand. Replies due by 3/4/2020. (Winkleman, Michael) https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/31355031/Wiegand_et_al_v_Royal_Caribbean_Cruises_Ltd

And this means?

 

Someone has to reply by 3/4, but who?

[hallux]

5 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

Someone has to reply by 3/4, but who?

I believe the next response would be from Royal Caribbean's lawyers.  This is a back-and-forth between them, arguing about why the case should or shouldn't be dismissed.  There's a PDF attached to that entry but the page that's hosting that stuff wants money for it.  That PDF likely details Winklemann's stance on continuing with the case.

[cltnccruisers]

10 minutes ago, hallux said:

I believe the next response would be from Royal Caribbean's lawyers.  This is a back-and-forth between them, arguing about why the case should or shouldn't be dismissed.  There's a PDF attached to that entry but the page that's hosting that stuff wants money for it.  That PDF likely details Winklemann's stance on continuing with the case.

I recall Royal petitioning for a dismissal to which Winkleman basically replied, "Kiss off."   It wasn't a formal response to Winkleman - more like, "Really, your Honor?  This is ridiculous."   Maybe they have to formally respond this time?

[CoachAname]

11 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

And this means?

 

Someone has to reply by 3/4, but who?

 

1 minute ago, hallux said:

I believe the next response would be from Royal Caribbean's lawyers.  This is a back-and-forth between them, arguing about why the case should or shouldn't be dismissed.  There's a PDF attached to that entry but the page that's hosting that stuff wants money for it.  That PDF likely details Winklemann's stance on continuing with the case.

 

Hallux is correct, the Reply will be Royal Caribbean's lawyers. Generally, the way it works is:

          Motion (in this case the Defendant)

          Response to Motion (from Plaintiff) 

          Reply to Response to Motion (from the Defendant). This gives the original motion filer a chance to address any arguments/issues brought up in the Response. 

 

It is possible, with leave from the Court, for (the Plaintiffs) to file a sur-reply as well, but it is up to the Judge on whether they think it is appropriate to allow it, unlike the Response and Reply which can be filed without permission. 

 

[S.A.M.J.R.]

2 minutes ago, CoachAname said:

 

 

Hallux is correct, the Reply will be Royal Caribbean's lawyers. Generally, the way it works is:

          Motion (in this case the Defendant)

          Response to Motion (from Plaintiff) 

          Reply to Response to Motion (from the Defendant). This gives the original motion filer a chance to address any arguments/issues brought up in the Response. 

 

It is possible, with leave from the Court, for (the Plaintiffs) to file a sur-reply as well, but it is up to the Judge on whether they think it is appropriate to allow it, unlike the Response and Reply which can be filed without permission. 

 

As I understand it, RCI filed the motion to dismiss which was denied.  But, they were allowed to file an amended motion, which I guess they did(?).  Winkleman has responded to that motion, and that's the link above. 

 

So the next step is RCI replying to Winkleman's response to the amended motion?  And that's due on 3/4.   

[rusty nut]

2 hours ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

So if RCI is found liable, the cruise industry could shut down?  Sorry, no.  If RCI is found liable, I think the worst that would happen (aside from RCI giving the family money) is the windows get permanently closed. While not good, it's not terrible.

Even if RC is found liable, it doesn't mean they have to fix anything. The windows will remain open.

[CoachAname]

2 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

As I understand it, RCI filed the motion to dismiss which was denied.  But, they were allowed to file an amended motion, which I guess they did(?).  Winkleman has responded to that motion, and that's the link above. 

 

So the next step is RCI replying to Winkleman's response to the amended motion?  And that's due on 3/4.   

 

Exactly. The original motion to dismiss was denied on technical grounds and not on the merits of the parties' arguments. The Judge allowed RCI to file an amended motion correcting the technical issues. RCI filed their amended motion, Winkleman responded to that motion, and now RCI has the option to reply to that response by 3/4/2020. 

[TNcruising02]

This link from January has some pictures from different angles.

https://www.docdroid.net/IbpHQkj/wiegand-prelim-response-to-dismiss-3.pdf

Warning - details: https://www.docdroid.net/MmnZFeQ/wiegand-prelim-response-to-dismiss-4.pdf

 

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by TNcruising02

[coffeebean]

3 hours ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

So if RCI is found liable, the cruise industry could shut down?  Sorry, no.  If RCI is found liable, I think the worst that would happen (aside from RCI giving the family money) is the windows get permanently closed. While not good, it's not terrible.

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. No open windows. No ventilation. Hot and Humid with no ventilation. Asthma sufferers suing the cruise lines for lack of proper ventilation. People dropping like flies from heat exhaustion. Get the picture?

 

Windows need to be open for ventilation. If those windows must remain closed, I certainly will not be spending any time on those decks unless they are climate controlled. If climate controlled, then that is a whole different ball game.

 

What about open decks and balconies? Have you even thought about what the cruise lines may be up against with new regulations for all open area on ships? I won't be cruising if the ships become cages and with plexiglass in front of my face no matter where I go.

Edited February 27, 2020 by coffeebean

[TNcruising02]

https://www.docdroid.net/QDQQ4zh/court-order-2-6-20.pdf

https://www.docdroid.net/rbkGli7/notice-of-supplemental-authority.pdf

https://www.docdroid.net/zfRSuPr/new-motion-to-dismiss-2-13.pdf

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by TNcruising02

[coffeebean]

2 hours ago, TNcruising02 said:

Docket last updated: 12 hours ago

Wednesday, February 26, 2020
31		respm Response in Opposition to Motion Wed 02/26 1:07 PM  RESPONSE in Opposition re30 Amended MOTION TO DISMISS1 Complaint,28 Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim,,, Order on Motion to Compel,,, Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer,,, Order on Motion to Strike,,, Order on Motion f filed by Kimberly Schultz-Wiegand, Alan Wiegand. Replies due by 3/4/2020. (Winkleman, Michael) https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/31355031/Wiegand_et_al_v_Royal_Caribbean_Cruises_Ltd

What does this mean in layman's terms besides something happening on March 4, 2020.

[grapau27]

41 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. No open windows. No ventilation. Hot and Humid with no ventilation. Asthma sufferers suing the cruise lines for lack of proper ventilation. People dropping like flies from heat exhaustion. Get the picture?

 

Windows need to be open for ventilation. If those windows must remain closed, I certainly will not be spending any time on those decks unless they are climate controlled. If climate controlled, then that is a whole different ball game.

 

What about open decks and balconies? Have you even thought about what the cruise lines may be up against with new regulations for all open area on ships? I won't be cruising if the ships become cages and with plexiglass in front of my face no matter where I go.

I have no problem signing a disclaimer that we sail at our own risk.

Why should the actions of 1 extremely stupid man have to adversely affect millions of sensible cruisers all over the world.

[TNcruising02]

It's interesting that the Wiegand's attorney consented to the filing of the video on January 8th, but filed a motion to strike on January 17th.  So, it states that the issues raised in the motion to strike are moot since they were not misled or deceived when they consented.

Edited February 27, 2020 by TNcruising02

[S.A.M.J.R.]

44 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. No open windows. No ventilation. Hot and Humid with no ventilation. Asthma sufferers suing the cruise lines for lack of proper ventilation. People dropping like flies from heat exhaustion. Get the picture?

 

Windows need to be open for ventilation. If those windows must remain closed, I certainly will not be spending any time on those decks unless they are climate controlled. If climate controlled, then that is a whole different ball game.

 

What about open decks and balconies? Have you even thought about what the cruise lines may be up against with new regulations for all open area on ships? I won't be cruising if the ships become cages and with plexiglass in front of my face no matter where I go.

Aren't there other ships where there are no open windows on the pool decks?  And come on, no ventilation and people dropping from heat exhaustion?  The entire middle of of the pool deck is open to above.  

 

As far as the other other open decks and balconies, it depends on how things are written.  Assuming a loss will "destroy the cruise industry" is nothing but hyperbole. 

[TNcruising02]

Also, this is interesting.  I wonder what separate criminal matter they are referring to.

 

"Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim references several extrinsic sources of information, including a surveillance video, a statement made by a nonparty as to a separate criminal matter..."

 

Page 4
https://www.docdroid.net/QDQQ4zh/court-order-2-6-20.pdf#page=4

[coffeebean]

12 minutes ago, grapau27 said:

I have no problem signing a disclaimer that we sail at our own risk.

Why should the actions of 1 extremely stupid man have to adversely affect millions of sensible cruisers all over the world.

I agree. If only signing a disclaimer would give the cruise lines peace of mind that they won't be sued at every turn.

[coffeebean]

16 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

Aren't there other ships where there are no open windows on the pool decks?  And come on, no ventilation and people dropping from heat exhaustion?  The entire middle of of the pool deck is open to above.  

 

As far as the other other open decks and balconies, it depends on how things are written.  Assuming a loss will "destroy the cruise industry" is nothing but hyperbole. 

OK. You are correct about that but ventilation is needed under the area that has a roof.

[cltnccruisers]

4 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

OK. You are correct about that but ventilation is needed under the area that has a roof.

I could be wrong (that would be the 2nd time today) but I thought those windows were only open in port when the air can be pretty stagnant.

[S.A.M.J.R.]

2 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

OK. You are correct about that but ventilation is needed under the area that has a roof.

Why?  Picture the Boardwalk area of an Oasis class ship... open to above and the rear, but 6-7 stories of cabins on each side.  When the ship is moving, you're not going to get airflow from the back.  So where's it's ventilation?

 

Don't get me wrong, I like the open windows and don't think they need to be closed.  But if the court says those windows need to close, RCI will close the windows and people will continue to cruise.   

[cltnccruisers]

7 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

Why?  Picture the Boardwalk area of an Oasis class ship... open to above and the rear, but 6-7 stories of cabins on each side.  When the ship is moving, you're not going to get airflow from the back.  So where's it's ventilation?

 

Don't get me wrong, I like the open windows and don't think they need to be closed.  But if the court says those windows need to close, RCI will close the windows and people will continue to cruise.   

There are areas along the sides of the pool deck that are under cover.  I forget if above is a track or another level of deck chairs.  I can see how that could get a bit oppressive.  Maybe that's what coffeebean was referring to.

[rusty nut]

14 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

Why?  Picture the Boardwalk area of an Oasis class ship... open to above and the rear, but 6-7 stories of cabins on each side.  When the ship is moving, you're not going to get airflow from the back.  So where's it's ventilation?

 

Don't get me wrong, I like the open windows and don't think they need to be closed.  But if the court says those windows need to close, RCI will close the windows and people will continue to cruise.   

A court can't make them close the windows. That's a whole other issue that will require industry wide safety standards. Not going to happen.

[AlanF65]

54 minutes ago, TNcruising02 said:

Also, this is interesting.  I wonder what separate criminal matter they are referring to.

 

"Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim references several extrinsic sources of information, including a surveillance video, a statement made by a nonparty as to a separate criminal matter..."

 

Page 4
https://www.docdroid.net/QDQQ4zh/court-order-2-6-20.pdf#page=4

I believe at some point the step father was criminally charged, not sure what came of that but that's probably the criminal matter.

[hallux]

1 hour ago, coffeebean said:

What does this mean in layman's terms besides something happening on March 4, 2020.

A few posts above yours discuss this..

 

6 minutes ago, AlanF65 said:

I believe at some point the step father was criminally charged, not sure what came of that but that's probably the criminal matter.

Several other posts in this thread discussing this.  In short - grandfather has plead guilty but admits to no facts, I wrote a long explanation on my opinion of this earlier in the thread as well so I won't repeat it...

[fred30]

40 minutes ago, cltnccruisers said:

I could be wrong (that would be the 2nd time today) but I thought those windows were only open in port when the air can be pretty stagnant.

I see people opening and closing these windows frequently.   Doesn't matter where the ship is or what time it.

[coffeebean]

44 minutes ago, cltnccruisers said:

I could be wrong (that would be the 2nd time today) but I thought those windows were only open in port when the air can be pretty stagnant.

Anyone can open the windows at any time. The handle can sometimes be difficult to manage because they can be stiff, but anyone with a strength can open those windows.