The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Paul A. Crotty, United States District Judge:
In this maritime action, Plaintiff Lisa Paisola ("Paisola") seeks compensation for physical and psychological injuries she sustained while a passenger on a cruise ship, the M/S EXPLORER (the "vessel"), which struck ice and sank near the South Shetland Islands off the coast of Antarctica on November 23, 2007. Her complaint alleges negligence against Defendant GAP Adventures, Inc. ("GAP"), the vessel's operator. On December 7, 2010, the Court referred this case to Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis for general pretrial and dispositive motions. (Docket No. 4.) On July 18, 2011, GAP moved to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds of improper service of process, lack of personaljurisdiction, and forum non conveniens. GAP subsequently withdrew its claims of improper service and lack of personal jurisdiction, leaving forum non conveniens as the only remaining issue before the Court.
On March 9, 2012, Magistrate Judge Ellis issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") in which he recommended that the Court deny GAP's motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens. GAP filed timely written objections to the R&R on March 16, 2012. The Court has reviewed the R&R and Defendant's objections. For the reasons discussed below, the Court adopts the R&R in full and denies Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint.
On or about October 18, 2007, Paisola purchased her ticket for a nineteen-day cruise in the Antarctic region. She purchased the ticket from ITEX Canada, which in turn purchased Paisola's ticket from GAP, a Canadian tour company that operated the vessel. On November 11, 2007, Paisola boarded the vessel in Ushuaia, Argentina. During the voyage, on November 23, 2007, the vessel struck ice and sank near the South Shetland Islands. Paisola was subsequently rescued from one of the vessel's lifeboats.
On November 19, 2010, Paisola filed this maritime action against GAP, as well as other defendants who have since been dropped from the case. In her Complaint, Paisola asserts claims for negligence and alleges that she sustained physical and psychological injuries from the incident. On July 18, 2011, GAP moved to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds of improper service of process, lack of personaljurisdiction, and forum non conveniens. GAP subsequently withdrew its improper service and personal jurisdiction claims, leaving only its forum non conveniens argument. GAP contends that Paisola's Expedition Ticket/Contract*fn2 provides that Canadian law governs the agreement, and that a forum selection clause provides for exclusive jurisdiction in the Federal Court of Canada, Toronto.
In his R&R, issued on March 9, 2012,*fn3 Magistrate Judge Ellis found that the agreement submitted by GAP was not signed by Paisola, and that there was a dispute as to whether she ever saw the agreement. He therefore concluded that United States maritime law, rather than Canadian law, applied to this case.
In analyzing GAP's claim of forum non conveniens, Magistrate Judge Ellis applied the two-part test set forth in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947), and Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 243-44 (1981). Under this test, before a court dismisses a case on forum non conveniens grounds,a defendant must show that (1) an adequate alternative forum exists; and (2) private and public interests weigh in favor of dismissal. Gilbert, 330 U.S. at 508. Magistrate Judge Ellis found that Canada did not provide an adequate alternative forum because Paisola's claim would be time-barred under Canadian law, which provides for a two-year statute of limitations. In balancing the private interest factors, Magistrate Judge Ellis concluded that GAP failed to show why it could not transport documents and witnesses from other locations to New York. He also noted that transfer of this case to Canada would be more burdensome and costly for Paisola, who is proceeding pro se, while GAP is a multinational corporation with a presence in New York. Magistrate Judge Ellis also found that the public interest did not weigh in favor of transferring this case to Canada, as Canada has no greater interest in the outcome of this litigation than New York. Magistrate Judge Ellis therefore recommended that the Court deny GAP's motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens.
In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, the Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). "To accept the report and recommendation of a magistrate, to which no timely objection has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (citations omitted). Where a party submits a timely objection to the report and ...