Carpenter v. Carnival Corp.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
2007 WL 9702036 (2007)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
In September 2005, Kyles Carpenter (plaintiff) took a pleasure cruise on the Miracle, a vessel owned and operated by Carnival Corporation (defendant). During the cruise, Carpenter played slot machines in the Miracle’s casino room and allegedly won a cash jackpot on a slot machine. In addition to the cash, Carpenter also allegedly won 3,355,443 in bonus points, which were worth a substantial reward. According to Carpenter, however, immediately after Carpenter’s win, Carnival employees opened the machine, erased the award, and returned Carpenter’s original wager to him. The employees allegedly told Carpenter that he was not entitled to the cash or bonus points. Carpenter sued Carnival in federal district court in Florida, asserting claims for breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, and conversion. Carpenter claimed that Carnival’s marketing materials that promoted casino-style gambling onboard the Miracle had induced Carpenter to enter into a cruise-line passage contract with Carnival. Carnival moved to dismiss Carpenter’s complaint. In analyzing the motion to dismiss, the district court considered whether it had admiralty jurisdiction over Carpenter’s claims.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Moore, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.