OCTOBER TERM, 2009
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
KRUPSKI v. COSTA CROCIERE S. P. A.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 09–337. Argued April 21, 2010—Decided June 7, 2010
Petitioner Krupski sought compensation for injuries she suffered on a
cruise ship. Her passenger ticket, which was issued by Costa Cruise
Lines, identified respondent Costa Crociere S. p. A. as the carrier; re-
quired an injured party to submit to the carrier or its agent written
notice of a claim; required any lawsuit to be filed within one year of
the injury; and designated a specific Federal District Court as the ex-
clusive forum for lawsuits such as Krupski’s. The front of the ticket
listed Costa Cruise’s Florida address and made references to “Costa
Cruises.” After Krupski’s attorney notified Costa Cruise of her
claims but did not reach a settlement, Krupski filed a diversity negli-
gence action against Costa Cruise. Over the next several months—
after the limitations period had expired—Costa Cruise brought Costa
Crociere’s existence to Krupski’s attention three times, including in
its motion for summary judgment, in which it stated that Costa Cro-
ciere was the proper defendant. Krupski responded and moved to
amend her complaint to add Costa Crociere as a defendant. The Dis-
trict Court denied Costa Cruise’s summary judgment motion without
prejudice and granted Krupski leave to amend. After she served
Costa Crociere with an amended complaint, the court dismissed
Costa Cruise from the case. Thereafter, Costa Crociere—represented
by the same counsel as Costa Cruise—moved