Quantcast

Woman blames Norwegian Cruise Lines, DJ Khaled for sexual assault on cruise

FLORIDA RECORD

Thursday, November 21, 2024

Woman blames Norwegian Cruise Lines, DJ Khaled for sexual assault on cruise

Federal Court
Norwegian getaway miami

MIAMI — A lawsuit alleges a security guard committed sexual assault during a cruise event organized by Norwegian Cruise Lines.

The cruise also was promoted by Khaled Mohammed Khaled, better known as DJ Khaled, and secured by Almighty Protection Services, according to a complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The plaintiff, identified in the complaint as Jane Doe, claims she suffered significant physical and psychological harm and alleges the defendants were negligent and failed to ensure passenger safety.


DJ Khaled | Facebook

The incident occurred during the "Days of Summer Cruise Fest," the complaint states. APS, a security services provider, was contracted to ensure safety during the event.

John Roe, an employee or agent of APS, allegedly committed sexual assault against the plaintiff during the cruise. 

Doe claims she purchased a ticket for the Summer Cruise Fest, indicating a disability during registration. The event was advertised as a festive occasion with music, comedy shows and parties. 

The plaintiff attended performances and consumed alcohol on July 3, which was also her birthday, according to the suit.

Doe claims she was intoxicated and disoriented when she encountered John Roe, who offered to escort her to her cabin but led her to a different cabin. There, he allegedly assaulted her physically and sexually against her will.

After the assault, the plaintiff sought help from another security guard to find her cabin. Upon returning to California, she reported the assault to the local police, sought medical attention and initiated psychological counseling due to depression, anxiety and panic attacks resulting from the incident.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants were responsible for inadequate security measures, training and supervision, leading to the assault, according to the suit. Doe also claims the defendants were negligent and failed to protect passengers from harm. 

Doe claims the defendants were aware of previous complaints or incidents involving Roe's misconduct but failed to take appropriate action.

Doe is seeking compensatory damages in excess of $75,000 and punitive damages. She is represented by Reginald D. Hicks of Reginald D. Hicks PA in Ft. Lauderdale.

Hicks declined to comment on the case.

In a motion to dismiss filed January 25, Khaled alleges that while he promoted the event, he was not present onboard the ship where the alleged assault occurred. 

The plaintiff's narrative describes her traumatic experience of sexual assault by the security guard, however, there is no indication in the complaint that Khaled had any direct involvement or responsibility for the assault, according to the motion.

As such, the claims against Khaled lack plausible allegations and should be dismissed with prejudice, he requests.

Khaled is represented by Bradford M. Cohen and Michael J. McMullen of Cohen & McMullen in Ft. Lauderdale.

Norwegian also filed a motion to dismiss February 1.

In its motion, it argues that each count is a "shotgun pleading."

"They commingle direct and vicarious liability theories, fail to distinguish between defendants, and are generally confusing as to how the claims are different," the motion states. "The Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint in whole because each count fails to meet the pleading requirements of Rule 8." 

Norwegian claims in its motion that the plaintiff's negligent security theory fails for a lack of alleged foreseeability of an intervening superseding criminal act. 

"Similarly, Plaintiff’s theories sounding in negligent hiring and retention fail because there are no allegations that Norwegian had prior knowledge of the assailant’s propensity to act violently," the complaint states. "And as to the vicarious liability claims, Plaintiff fails to state a claim because the assailant’s actions were outside the scope of employment; or, more accurately, outside the scope of his employment with co-defendant APS."

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida case number: 1:23-cv-24236

More News