Jerry Rankin, et al. v. Celebrity Cruises, Ltd.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-12841
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cv-22793-PAS
JERRY RANKIN,
LUISA ALEXANDRA CUESTA,
OCTAVIO TOBAR,
JACOBO HINCAPIE,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
CELEBRITY CRUISES, LTD.,
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 7, 2012)
Before BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and LAWSON,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
* Honorable Hugh Lawson, United States District Judge for the Middle District of
Georgia, sitting by designation.
Case: 11-12841 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Plaintiffs Jerry Rankin, Octavio Tobar, Luisa Alexandra Cuesta, and Jacobo
Hincapie, independent contractor physicians previously employed by Celebrity
Cruise Lines (“physicians”), argue that Celebrity failed to pay a certain portion of
the commission to which they were entitled under their respective employment
contracts with Celebrity, and that, under the Seaman’s Wage Act, 46 U.S.C. §
10313, they are entitled to two days’ wages for each day that Celebrity has delayed
payment of this contractual amount. Even if the district court erred in its reading
of the statute, however, the physicians nonetheless cannot prevail on this claim
because the district court found against them on an alternative basis which was not
properly challenged. Specifically, the district court found that “plaintiffs’ failure to
allege that they were not paid after being discharged from a foreign or intercoastal
voyage, which is the stated basis for the Court’s jurisdiction . . . precludes
application of this statute to plaintiffs’ claims.”1
The physicians also contend that Celebrity violated their “maintenance and
cure” obligations to the physicians by requiring the physicians to pay for their own
health insurance while employed by Celebrity, and that this constituted a “de facto
deduction of wages” for which they are also entitled to recover. “Maintenance and
cure” is a principle grounded in maritime law and requires a shipowner to “provide
medical treatment and support for the seaman who becomes ill or is injured while
1 Although the plaintiffs indicated at oral argument that they contested this issue in their reply brief, the law of this
circuit is clear that arguments which are first raised in a reply brief are deemed waived. United States v. House, 684
F.3d 1173, 1210 (11th Cir. 2012).
Case: 11-12841 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
in the service of the ship.” Garay v. Carnival Cruise Line, Inc., 904 F.2d 1527,
1529 (11th Cir. 1990). We find no reversible error here because none of the
physicians claim to have been injured.
AFFIRMED
Case: 11-12841 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --