Court grants Preliminary Injunction preventing Florida from enforcing Section 381.00316 against plaintiffs NCL, et. al.

[dswallow]

Court grants Preliminary Injunction preventing Florida from enforcing Section 381.00316 against plaintiffs NCL, et. al., allowing NCLH-owned cruise lines to commence sailings requiring proof of vaccination from Florida ports.

Full order:
43_051023674708_OrderGrantingPreliminaryInjunction.pdf (2150.com)

Everything:
Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd et al v. Rivkees, M.D. (1:21-cv-22492) (2150.com)

 

Edited August 8, 2021 by dswallow

[jrapps]

Do you know if the injunction only applies to NCL, the entire cruise industry, or the entire law?

[tallnthensome]

Good

[dswallow]

4 minutes ago, jrapps said:

Do you know if the injunction only applies to NCL, the entire cruise industry, or the entire law?

 

Pretty sure I said that in the post. 🙂

[jrapps]

3 minutes ago, dswallow said:

 

Pretty sure I said that in the post. 🙂

Yes, I see you said et. al, but in reading the language of the injunction it did not specify that in the conclusion. Please forgive the layman question, but can we assume since the judge wrote "Section 381.00316 is likely an unconstitutional statute under the First Amendment", that the injunction applies to everything and not just cruise lines?

[Shidah]

Great news!

[Diane67B]

This is fantastic news. I hope that 100% vaccinated  passenger's rule continues into January at the least.

[RumRunner2021]

4 minutes ago, jrapps said:

Yes, I see you said et. al, but in reading the language of the injunction it did not specify that in the conclusion. Please forgive the layman question, but can we assume since the judge wrote "Section 381.00316 is likely an unconstitutional statute under the First Amendment", that the injunction applies to everything and not just cruise lines?

It wasn't clear to me either.  Perhaps somebody else who understands this stuff will help us legal-challenged folks understand.

[dswallow]

1 minute ago, jrapps said:

Yes, I see you said et. al, but in reading the language of the injunction it did not specify that in the conclusion. Please forgive the layman question, but can we assume since the judge wrote "Section 381.00316 is likely an unconstitutional statute under the First Amendment", that the injunction applies to everything and not just cruise lines?

 

As in the Florida case against the CDC, this is just a preliminary injunction, it is not any kind of final disposition of the case. The preliminary injunction the court granted was what the plaintiff requested. It goes no further than what NCLH requested... to prevent Florida from enforcing that specific law against them and sailings of their ships that depart from Florida and require proof of vaccination.

 

Among the ways a preliminary injunction can be granted, the plaintiff has to prove there's high likelihood of success, so the judge's order includes reviewing that aspect of the original case. But it's not a finding on the case, it's simply expressing that there does indeed appear to be a high likelihood the plaintiff will succeed in the original case. Further, they look at what sort of harm would come from granting or not granting the preliminary injunction, and Florida did not show potential harm if the enforcement of the law against NCLH were enjoined, whereas NCLH claimed that potential harm to the public health could occur if they were forced to allow non-vaccinated people aboard the sailings.

 

The very last part of the order specifically states Florida is prevented from enforcing that law against the plaintiffs, which are only NCLH-owned cruise lines.

[jrapps]

4 minutes ago, dswallow said:

 

As in the Florida case against the CDC, this is just a preliminary injunction, it is not any kind of final disposition of the case. The preliminary injunction the court granted was what the plaintiff requested. It goes no further than what NCLH requested... to prevent Florida from enforcing that specific law against them and sailings of their ships that depart from Florida and require proof of vaccination.

 

Among the ways a preliminary injunction can be granted, the plaintiff has to prove there's high likelihood of success, so the judge's order includes reviewing that aspect of the original case. But it's not a finding on the case, it's simply expressing that there does indeed appear to be a high likelihood the plaintiff will succeed in the original case. Further, they look at what sort of harm would come from granting or not granting the preliminary injunction, and Florida did not show potential harm if the enforcement of the law against NCLH were enjoined, whereas NCLH claimed that potential harm to the public health could occur if they were forced to allow non-vaccinated people aboard the sailings.

 

The very last part of the order specifically states Florida is prevented from enforcing that law against the plaintiffs, which are only NCLH-owned cruise lines.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

One last question..since the injunction is so narrow to only NCL and subsidiaries, if another cruise line were to require vaccines, FL would be free to levy the fines against them if they so choose, and nothing could be done unless the other lines then files their own lawsuit, correct?

[dswallow]

14 minutes ago, jrapps said:

Thanks for the explanation.

 

One last question..since the injunction is so narrow to only NCL and subsidiaries, if another cruise line were to require vaccines, FL would be free to levy the fines against them if they so choose, and nothing could be done unless the other lines then files their own lawsuit, correct?

 

I'm sure there's a process they could follow to join the suit and likely a way to submit a motion to the court to expand the preliminary injunction. Conversely if they simply filed a similar suite, the suits could probably be combined at some point, too. Someone familiar with all that could probably detail what's possible better than I could.

[milolii]

Thanks for the update and information.  

[FlGoodShips]

YAY👏😃!!!

So happy🙂

[Shayhooper]

I appreciate NCL holding out for the right and safe conditions. 

[cruisegus]

I tip my hat to NCL.

Although a seasoned cruiser, of other brands, NCL just made my list for most likely for my next cruise.

[TheHawk1]

29 minutes ago, cruisegus said:

I tip my hat to NCL.

Although a seasoned cruiser, of other brands, NCL just made my list for most likely for my next cruise.

I agree. Most of the other cruise lines had no guts in standing up to DeSantis and tried to appease everyone instead.  NCL’s stance on this issue has certainly improved my opinion of them in relation to the other brands.

[Coastalbreezes]

Great news especially for those of us leaving Sunday on the Gem. Now I can start packing! 😃

[Goldconnection]

This is great news!

[At Sea At Peace]

11 hours ago, dswallow said:

 

As in the Florida case against the CDC, this is just a preliminary injunction, it is not any kind of final disposition of the case. The preliminary injunction the court granted was what the plaintiff requested. It goes no further than what NCLH requested... to prevent Florida from enforcing that specific law against them and sailings of their ships that depart from Florida and require proof of vaccination.

 

Among the ways a preliminary injunction can be granted, the plaintiff has to prove there's high likelihood of success, so the judge's order includes reviewing that aspect of the original case. But it's not a finding on the case, it's simply expressing that there does indeed appear to be a high likelihood the plaintiff will succeed in the original case. Further, they look at what sort of harm would come from granting or not granting the preliminary injunction, and Florida did not show potential harm if the enforcement of the law against NCLH were enjoined, whereas NCLH claimed that potential harm to the public health could occur if they were forced to allow non-vaccinated people aboard the sailings.

 

The very last part of the order specifically states Florida is prevented from enforcing that law against the plaintiffs, which are only NCLH-owned cruise lines.

 

Thanks for the links and well summarized.

 

A very, very detailed Order.

 

 

Edited August 9, 2021 by At Sea At Peace

[D C]

11 hours ago, jrapps said:

Thanks for the explanation.

 

One last question..since the injunction is so narrow to only NCL and subsidiaries, if another cruise line were to require vaccines, FL would be free to levy the fines against them if they so choose, and nothing could be done unless the other lines then files their own lawsuit, correct?

Let's hope the other cruise lines all follow suit.  I'm sure the legal departments are prepping for CEO meetings right now. 

 

And that judge certainly wasn't at all favorable to the state in the comments I saw.  Good. 

 

 

[zubee23]

Excellent news!

[Red-Sol]

Great news (even if it isn't the final disposition of the case) I really hope that Royal, Carnival, etc. are watching and now (finally) react the right way themselves. Frankly I hope that this becomes a permanent situation for all of them.

[Seanair]

Excellent news. We are also on the Sunday sailing of the Gem.  Looking forward to a safe cruise! Thank you for keeping us up to date on these court details!

Edited August 9, 2021 by Seanair

[JamieLogical]

I was so excited to see this news when I woke up this morning! What a great way to start the day! I am really relieved for everyone sailing on the Gem next week who felt like their sailing was in Limbo.

[ricksurf]

This is Excellent News and finally some logical and scientific direction for the safety of all cruise passengers.