[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
------------------------------------------- MARCH 01, 2002
No. 98-5913 THOMAS K. KAHN
-------------------------------------------- CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 98-02140-CV-FAM
TAMMY STEVENS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PREMIER CRUISES, INC.,
a Canadian corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
(March 1, 2002)
Before EDMONDSON and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and COHILL*, District
Judge.
_______________
C Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr., U.S. District Judge for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
B Y T H E C O U R T:
This matter is before the Court on a motion for rehearing and on a
suggestion for rehearing en banc. They both are DENIED.
The panel, however, does now clarify footnote 8 in its original opinion.
This case came before us on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. We determined
that the district court erred in its conclusion that Title III of the ADA -- as a matter
of law -- can have no application to cruise ships in United States waters which sail
under a foreign flag and are owned by a foreign corporation. Appellee, in its
original brief to the court, did contend that allowing the ADA to apply, even in
principle, to a foreign flag vessel would violate certain treaties and conventions
and, thus, that the ADA was not intended by Congress to cover such vessels at all.
Appellee did not point out a definite and specific conflict between the concrete
requirements of Title III in application and international laws and conventions in
governing how a ship could be constructed or operated: for example, what conflict
arises from a U.S. rule against discriminatory fares.
We noted in our original opinion that we left open whether treaty obligations
of the United States might in some instances preclude or limit application of Title
III. In the meantime, we have looked at supplemental briefs. But we will not
address further the connection between the application of Title III and United
2
States treaty obligations and international law and conventions. To decide this
appeal from a 12(b)(6) dismissal, we need not foresee and decide the result for
every potential conflict with every possible treaty, convention or article of
international law. We continue to believe that it is not beyond doubt that plaintiff
in this case can prove a set of facts in support of her claim which would entitle her
to relief.
MOTION FOR REHEARING DENIED.
SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC DENIED.
3