HAMILTON, MILLER & BIRTHISEL, LLP

150 Southeast Second Avenue, Suite 1200, · Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: 305-379-3686 · Facsimile: 305-379-3690

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22133-JEM

RYAN MAUNES MAGLANA and 

FRANCIS KARL BUGAYONG on 

their own behalf and as class

representatives of all other similarly

situated Filipino crewmembers

trapped aboard CELEBRITY cruise

vessels,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CELEBRITY CRUISES INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________________/

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND 

DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendant CELEBRITY CRUISES, INC. (“Celebrity”), pursuant to 9 U.S.C. §206, petitions

the Court to enter an Order directing Plaintiffs, Ryan Maunes Maglana and Francis Karl 

Bugayong (collectively “Plaintiffs”), to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the

written contracts they signed with Celebrity. 

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Plaintiffs executed a Sign-On Employment Agreement and the Philippine Overseas 

Employment Administration Contract of Employment. Those contracts, which govern the 

parties’ relationship, are subject to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and 

Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“the Convention”) and require all disputes to be 

resolved by arbitration in the Philippines under Philippine law. Accordingly, the Court should 

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2020 Page 1 of 13
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22133-JEM

- 2 -

HAMILTON, MILLER & BIRTHISEL, LLP

150 Southeast Second Avenue, Suite 1200, · Miami, Florida 33131 · Telephone: 305-379-3686 · Facsimile: 305-379-3690

enter an Order (1) directing Plaintiffs to proceed to arbitration, as they agreed to do when they 

signed their employment contracts, and (2) dismissing the Amended Complaint.

1

 

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Plaintiffs, who are citizens of the Philippines and worked aboard cruise ships 

operated by Celebrity, filed a five-count Amended Class Action Complaint against Celebrity 

asserting claims for (1) Preliminary Mandatory Injunction Requiring Repatriation of Defendant’s 

Filipino Crewmembers; (2) Intentional Tort of False Imprisonment; (3) Employment 

Discrimination on the Basis of National Origin; (4) Wages and Penalties Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 

§10313; and (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. See Am. Comp. (ECF No. 19).

2. Plaintiffs entered into written employment agreements that require all disputes 

between Plaintiffs and Celebrity – including the claims asserted in the amended complaint – to 

be resolved by binding arbitration in the Philippines and decided under Philippine law. 

a. Plaintiff Ryan Maunes Maglana (“Maglana”) executed certain contracts 

for employment onboard the Celebrity Millennium as a Beverage Controller. See “Signon Employment Agreement” dated October 23, 2019; “Collective Bargaining 

Agreement” (“CBA”);2 “Contract of Employment” dated October 18, 2019; and 

“POEA’s Standard Terms and Conditions Governing Filipino Seafarers,” attached as 

 1 Because this Motion is brought under 9 U.S.C. §206, it does not raise the myriad substantive 

problems with the amended complaint, such as its failure to state a claim, the class action waiver 

that bars Plaintiffs’ attempt to plead a class action, and Plaintiffs’ failure to satisfy conditions 

precedent by attending a conciliation conference as required by the Employment Agreement.

2 Collective Agreement Between Celebrity Cruises Inc. and Federazione Italiana Trasporti-CISLITF International Dept.-Italy on Behalf of Itself and Associated Marine Officers’ and Seamen’s 

Union of the Philippines, effective July 1, 2017.

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2020 Page 2 of 13
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22133-JEM

- 3 -

HAMILTON, MILLER & BIRTHISEL, LLP

150 Southeast Second Avenue, Suite 1200, · Miami, Florida 33131 · Telephone: 305-379-3686 · Facsimile: 305-379-3690

Exhibits “A” through “D” and Declaration of Leah Martinez (“Martinez Declaration”) 

attached as Exhibit “G” at ¶¶ 3-7.

b. Plaintiff Francis Karl Bugayong (“Bugayong”) executed certain contracts 

for employment onboard the Celebrity Millennium as a Bar Storekeeper Utility. See

“Sign-on Employment Agreement” dated January 21, 2020; “Collective Bargaining 

Agreement” (“CBA”); “Contract of Employment” dated October 3, 2019; and “POEA’s

Standard Terms and Conditions Governing Filipino Seafarers,” attached as Exhibits 

“B,” “D,” “E,” and “F” and Martinez Declaration at ¶¶ 8-12.

c. Plaintiffs’ personnel records, including their employment agreements, are 

maintained by Celebrity in the ordinary course of business. See Martinez Declaration at 

¶¶ 13-18. Each document will be addressed below individually. 

3. The “Sign-On Employment Agreement” (“SOEA”) executed by each Plaintiff for 

employment onboard the Celebrity Millennium sets forth the basic terms and conditions of 

employment, including salary and hours. The SOEA requires all grievances to be resolved by 

arbitration in the Philippines:

All grievances and any other dispute whatsoever, whether in contract, 

regulatory, statutory, common law, tort or otherwise relating to or in anyway 

connected with the Seafarers service for the Owners/Company under the present 

Agreement, including but not limited to claims for personal injury/disability or 

death, no matter how described, pleaded or styled, and whether asserted against the 

Owners/Company, Master, Employer, Ship Owner, vessel or vessel operator shall 

be referred to and resolved exclusively by mandatory arbitration pursuant to 

the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of 

Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York 1958), 21 U.S.T. 2517, 330 U.N.T.S., (“The 

Convention”), except as provided by any government mandated contract.

. . . 

Jurisdiction and venue over disputes between Filipino Seafarers and the 

Owners/Company shall be governed by the terms of the standard Philippines 

Overseas Employment Administration Contract of Employment (“POEA” 

Contract”) and the POEA Contract jurisdictional and venue terms shall supersede 

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2020 Page 3 of 13
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22133-JEM

- 4 -

HAMILTON, MILLER & BIRTHISEL, LLP

150 Southeast Second Avenue, Suite 1200, · Miami, Florida 33131 · Telephone: 305-379-3686 · Facsimile: 305-379-3690

and take precedence over any conflicting terms set forth in this agreement. 

(emphasis added). 

See Exhibits “A” and “E” at ARBITRATION PROCEDURE, ¶¶ 1 and 4. 

4. The SOEA further delegates to the arbitrator broad authority to resolve disputes:

The arbitrator, not any federal, state or local court or agency shall have the

exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the interpretation, 

applicability, enforceability or formation of this Agreement including, but not 

limited to any claim that all or any part of this agreement is void or voidable and as

to choice of law.

See Id. at ARBITRATION PROCEDURE, ¶ 14. 

5. The SOEA incorporates the CBA. The CBA contains language identical to the 

arbitration provision in the SOEA requiring arbitration of all disputes whatsoever. See Exhibit 

“B” at Art. 33(1), (4).

6. Plaintiffs also signed a contract with the Philippine Overseas Employment 

Administration (“POEA Contract”) for employment that sets forth the basic terms and conditions 

of employment and incorporates by reference the Governing Board Resolution No. 9 and the 

Memorandum Circular No. 10, both series 2010. See Exhibits “C,” and “F.” 

7. The POEA Contract specifically incorporates the POEA’s Standard Terms and 

Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers On Board Ocean-Going Vessels 

(“POEA’s Standard Terms and Conditions”). See Id. at ¶ 2. The POEA’s Memorandum Circular 

No. 10 requires the incorporation of and sets the minimum requirements for the POEA’s 

Standard Terms and Conditions. See Exhibit “D.”

8. The Standard Terms and Conditions require that the parties submit their claims 

and disputes to arbitration. See Exhibit “D” at § 29. The Standard Terms and Conditions also 

state that any dispute, claim or grievance shall be governed by the laws of the Republic of the 

Philippines, international conventions, treaties and covenants where the Philippines is a 

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2020 Page 4 of 13
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22133-JEM

- 5 -

HAMILTON, MILLER & BIRTHISEL, LLP

150 Southeast Second Avenue, Suite 1200, · Miami, Florida 33131 · Telephone: 305-379-3686 · Facsimile: 305-379-3690

signatory. Id. at § 31. Such provisions are ordinarily enforced. Asignacion v. Rickmers Genoa 

Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH & Cie KG, 783 F.3d 1010, 1015 (5th Cir.2015) cert. denied, –––

U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 795, 193 L.Ed.2d 764 (2016) (“Applying Philippine law to a Filipino 

seaman in a Philippine arbitration, by itself, is not cause for setting aside the award even if 

American choice of law principles would lead to the application of another nations law.”).

9. Plaintiffs filed the instant class action suit notwithstanding the binding written 

agreement to arbitrate any and all disputes in the Philippines under Philippine law. 

III. MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of their employment with Celebrity and are subject to the 

terms of their employment agreements, which mandate arbitration in the Philippines under 

Philippine law. By failing to submit their claims to arbitration as required by their employment 

agreements, Plaintiffs are violating the terms of the contracts they signed and the directives of 

their own country, which has established the POEA to supervise, regulate, promote, and monitor 

overseas employment programs for the purpose of ensuring the best terms and conditions of 

employment for Filipino contract workers. The Court should order Plaintiffs to submit to 

arbitration in the Philippines under Philippine law pursuant to the terms of their binding and 

enforceable contracts. 

A. Federal Law Favors Arbitration

Federal law strongly favors agreements to arbitrate, particularly in international 

commercial transactions. See Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506 (1974). In Mitsubishi 

Motor Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985), the Supreme Court held:

Concerns of international comity, respect for the capacities of foreign and 

transnational tribunals, and sensitivity to the need of the international commercial 

system for predictability in the resolution of disputes require that we enforce the 

parties’ agreement, even assuming that a contrary result would be forthcoming in 

a domestic context.

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2020 Page 5 of 13
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22133-JEM

- 6 -

HAMILTON, MILLER & BIRTHISEL, LLP

150 Southeast Second Avenue, Suite 1200, · Miami, Florida 33131 · Telephone: 305-379-3686 · Facsimile: 305-379-3690

Id. at 629. 

“[T]here is a strong presumption in favor of freely-negotiated contractual choice of law 

and forum selection provisions, and this presumption applies with special force in the field of 

international commerce.” Lindo v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., 652 F.3d 1257, 1275 (11th Cir. 2011). 

“Questions of arbitrability must be addressed with a healthy regard for the federal policy 

favoring arbitration ... and doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in 

favor of arbitration.” Adolfo v. Carnival Corp., Case No. 02-23672, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

24143 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 17, 2003) (relying upon Mitsubishi Motors Corp. 473 U.S. at 626). See 

also Bautista v. Star Cruises, 396 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11th Cir. 2005) (The Convention Act 

“generally establishes a strong presumption in favor of arbitration of international commercial 

disputes.”).

B. The Convention

International arbitration agreements are subject to the Convention, which provides that a 

court possessing jurisdiction under the Convention must direct that arbitration be held in 

accordance with the agreement at any place therein provided for, whether that place is within or 

outside the United States. 9 U.S.C. § 206. The SOEA, CBA, POEA Contract and the POEA 

Terms and Conditions also expressly state that the arbitration is to be held pursuant to the 

Convention.

In light of the strong policy favoring arbitration, courts conduct “a very limited inquiry” 

in deciding whether to compel arbitration pursuant to the Convention. Escobar v. Celebration 

Cruise Operator, Inc., 805 F.3d 1279, 1285 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing Bautista v. Star Cruises, 396 

F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2005)); Francisco v. Stolt Achievement MT, 293 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 

2002); Ledee v. Ceramiche Ragno, 684 F.2d 184 (1st Cir. 1982). Quite simply, “the Act leaves 

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2020 Page 6 of 13
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22133-JEM

- 7 -

HAMILTON, MILLER & BIRTHISEL, LLP

150 Southeast Second Avenue, Suite 1200, · Miami, Florida 33131 · Telephone: 305-379-3686 · Facsimile: 305-379-3690

no place for the exercise of discretion by a district court, but instead mandates that district courts

shall direct the parties to proceed to arbitration on the issues as to which an arbitration agreement 

has been signed.” Sedco v. Petroleos Mexicanos Mexican National Oil Co., 767 F.2d 1140, 1147 

(5th Cir. 1985). 

The Court must order arbitration if the following four conditions are met: (1) there is an 

agreement in writing to arbitrate the dispute, (2) the agreement provides for arbitration in the 

territory of a Convention signatory, (3) the agreement arises out of a commercial legal 

relationship, and (4) a party to the agreement is not an American citizen. See Lindo, 652 F.3d 

1276 (citing Bautista, 396 F.3d at 1294-95). See also Francisco, 293 F.3d at 273; Polychronakis 

v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 2008 WL 5191104 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, 

365 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 18, 2005) aff’d, 180 F. App’x 893 (11th Cir. May 18, 

2006). Here, all four conditions are met; thus, arbitration must be compelled.

1. There is an Agreement in Writing to Arbitrate

The contracts governing Plaintiffs’ employment and relationship with Celebrity require 

the arbitration of the claims asserted in the amended complaint. Specifically, the SOEA

executed by Plaintiffs and Celebrity, and also the CBA incorporated into the SOEA, mandate 

arbitration of all disputes whatsoever:

All grievances and any other dispute whatsoever, whether in contract, 

regulatory, statutory, common law, tort or otherwise relating to or in anyway 

connected with the Seafarers service for the Owners/Company under the present 

Agreement, including but not limited to claims for personal injury/disability or 

death, no matter how described, pleated or styled, and whether asserted against the 

Owners/Company, Master, Employer, Ship Owner, vessel or vessel operator shall 

be referred to and resolved exclusively by mandatory arbitration pursuant to 

the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of 

Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York 1958), 21 U.S.T. 2517, 330 U.N.T.S., (“The 

Convention”), except as provided by any government mandated contract.

. . . 

Jurisdiction and venue over disputes between Filipino Seafarers and the 

Owners/ Company shall be governed by the terms of the standard Philippines 

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2020 Page 7 of 13
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22133-JEM

- 8 -

HAMILTON, MILLER & BIRTHISEL, LLP

150 Southeast Second Avenue, Suite 1200, · Miami, Florida 33131 · Telephone: 305-379-3686 · Facsimile: 305-379-3690

Overseas Employment Administration Contract of Employment (“POEA” 

Contract”) and the POEA Contract jurisdictional and venue terms shall supersede 

and take precedence over any conflicting terms set forth in this agreement. 

(emphasis added). 

See Exhibits “A” and “E” at ARBITRATION PROCEDURE, ¶¶ 1 and 4, and Exhibit “B” at Art. 

33(1), (4).

Plaintiffs also signed the POEA Contract, which was verified and approved by an officer 

of the Philippines Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) the same day. See Exhibits “C” 

and “F.” Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs’ POEA Contract states that the terms and conditions of the 

contract are to be observed in accordance with Governing Board Resolution No. 9 and 

Memorandum Circular No. 10, promulgated by the Department of Labor and the POEA in 

2010.3 Those materials, in turn, incorporate the Standard Terms and Conditions Governing The 

Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships. See Exhibit “D.” In 

relevant part, Section 29 of the Standard Terms and Conditions, reads as follows:

In cases of claims and disputes arising from this employment, the parties covered 

by a collective bargaining agreement shall submit the claim or dispute to the 

original and exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators. 

If the parties are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement, the parties may 

at their option submit the claim or dispute to either the original and exclusive 

jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), pursuant to 

Republic Act of 1995 or to the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary 

arbitrator or panel or arbitrators. If there is no provision as to the voluntary 

arbitrators to be appointed by the parties, the same shall be appointed from the 

accredited voluntary arbitrators of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board 

of the Department of Labor and Employment.

See Exhibit “D” at § 29. Thus, the POEA Contract mandates the arbitration of Filipino seamen’s 

claims.

 3 The POEA supervises, regulates, promotes, and monitors overseas employment programs for 

the purpose of ensuring the best terms and conditions of employment for Filipino contract 

workers. Bautista v. Star Cruises, 286 F. Supp. 2d 1352, 1356 (S.D. Fla. 2003). To further this 

purpose, the POEA periodically issues memorandum circulars setting minimum requirements or 

standards of compensation and other benefits for overseas Filipino workers, especially seafarers, 

to keep them on par with prevailing international standards. Id.

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2020 Page 8 of 13
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22133-JEM

- 9 -

HAMILTON, MILLER & BIRTHISEL, LLP

150 Southeast Second Avenue, Suite 1200, · Miami, Florida 33131 · Telephone: 305-379-3686 · Facsimile: 305-379-3690

It is indisputable that each Plaintiff signed two contracts that include an arbitration 

provision; therefore, the first condition is satisfied.

2. The Agreement Provides for Arbitration in the Territory of a 

Convention Signatory

The Philippines is a full signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition 

and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards through its ratification of The Convention.4

Therefore, the second condition is satisfied.

3. The Agreement Arises Out of a Commercial Legal 

Relationship

The third condition asks whether the agreement to arbitrate arises from a commercial 

legal relationship. Seamen employment contracts like the ones at issue here satisfy this element. 

See Bautista v. Star Cruises, 396 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2005) (affirming order granting motion to 

compel arbitration); Escobar v. Celebration Cruise Operator, Inc., 805 F.3d 1279, 1284-85 (11th 

Cir. 2015); Trifonov v. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co. SA, 590 F. App'x 842, 843-44 (11th 

Cir. 2014). Further, the language of the SOEA and POEA Contract clearly expresses their

commercial nature. See Exhibits “A” through “F”. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ employment 

agreements with Celebrity satisfy the third condition.

4. At Least One Party to the Agreement Is Not An American 

Citizen

Finally, the fourth condition is satisfied because Plaintiffs are citizens of the Philippines 

(Am. Compl., ¶¶2-3). Moreover, Plaintiffs were employed aboard a ship flagged under the laws 

of Malta.

 4 See http://www.newyorkconvention.org/list+of+contracting+states (last visited on July 6, 

2020).

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2020 Page 9 of 13
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22133-JEM

- 10 -

HAMILTON, MILLER & BIRTHISEL, LLP

150 Southeast Second Avenue, Suite 1200, · Miami, Florida 33131 · Telephone: 305-379-3686 · Facsimile: 305-379-3690

C. The District Courts Have Enforced POEA Contracts Such As The 

Employment Agreement Plaintiffs Signed. 

The Southern District of Florida has enforced POEA contracts incorporating the Standard 

Terms and Conditions requiring arbitration for the resolution of disputes. See Navarette v. 

Silversea Cruises Ltd., No. 14-CV-20593, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183318 (S.D. Fla. 2014) aff’d

620 F. App'x 793, 794-95 (11th Cir. Aug. 5, 2015). In Navarette, the court held that the POEA 

contract similar to the one here which incorporated the same Standard Terms and Conditions 

satisfied the “written agreement” requirement of The Convention. Id. at *6-7. In Pagaduan v. 

Carnival Corp., 709 F. App’x 713, 715-16 (2d Cir. 2017) the court held that the seaman’s 

contract of employment incorporated by reference the POEA’s Standard Terms and Conditions 

and its arbitration provision as a matter of law, thereby foreclosing any material factual dispute. 

Pagaduan signed a contract that clearly and unambiguously described the incorporated industrywide standard documents whose terms applied to the seafarer’s employment. Id. at 716-17. 

Thus, the arbitration provision in the Standard Terms and Conditions was enforced. Id. at 718.

Celebrity submits that upon the entry of an order directing the parties to arbitration, this 

cause should be dismissed because there is no need for the Court to retain jurisdiction. Caley v. 

Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 333 F. Supp. 2d 1367, 1379 (N.D.Ga. 2004), aff’d, 428 F.3d 1359 

(11th Cir. 2005). There is ample authority requiring the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint 

when all of the issues raised in the district court are subject to mandatory arbitration. Id.

D. Plaintiffs’ Attempt To Avoid Arbitration Fails.

In a preemptive attempt to avoid arbitration, the amended complaint alleges that 

arbitration should not be compelled because doing so would allow Celebrity “to evade any type 

of governmental oversight or public scrutiny” and “no arbitration provision [in the employment 

agreements] expressly call (sic) for arbitration of class action employment-related claims, nor 

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2020 Page 10 of 13
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22133-JEM

- 11 -

HAMILTON, MILLER & BIRTHISEL, LLP

150 Southeast Second Avenue, Suite 1200, · Miami, Florida 33131 · Telephone: 305-379-3686 · Facsimile: 305-379-3690

contemplate (sic) claims for equitable relief and mandatory injunctions” (Am. Compl., ¶¶67-69). 

Plaintiffs’ attempt to avoid arbitration fails.

This action is at the arbitration-enforcement stage, which is different than (and comes 

before) the award-enforcement stage. See Escobar, 805 F.3d at 1286 (explaining the two stages 

of enforcement under the Convention). At this arbitration-enforcement stage, “the only

affirmative defense to arbitration is a defense that demonstrates the arbitration agreement is ‘null 

and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.’” See id. (quoting Article II(3) of the 

Convention) (emphasis added); see also Lindo, 652 F.3d at 1276. Additionally, “[t]he null-andvoid clause encompasses only those defenses grounded in standard breach-of-contract 

defenses—such as fraud, mistake, duress, and waiver . . . .” See Escobar, 805 F.3d at 1286 

(citing Bautista, 396 F.3d at 1302; Lindo, 652 F.3d at 1272-73) (emphasis added).

Plaintiffs’ personal wish for government oversight and public scrutiny of their claims 

and/or Celebrity is not among the limited defenses that can be asserted or considered at this 

arbitration-enforcement stage. Neither is the issue of whether and to what extent class arbitration 

or specific forms of relief are available. Moreover, to the extent that those notions can be

characterized as implicating public policy or unconscionability, the Eleventh Circuit has squarely 

held that neither is a defense that can be considered at the arbitration-enforcement stage. See, 

e.g., Escobar, 805 F.3d at 1287 (citing Lindo, 652 F.3d at 1276-80; Bautista, 396 F.3d at 1301-

03) (“[A]n unconscionability defense cannot be raised at the arbitration-enforcement stage.”); id.

(citing Lindo, 652 F.3d at 1263) (“Importantly, Article II [of the Convention] contains no explicit 

or implicit public-policy defense at the initial arbitration-enforcement stage.”).

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2020 Page 11 of 13
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22133-JEM

- 12 -

HAMILTON, MILLER & BIRTHISEL, LLP

150 Southeast Second Avenue, Suite 1200, · Miami, Florida 33131 · Telephone: 305-379-3686 · Facsimile: 305-379-3690

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant CELEBRITY CRUISES INC. respectfully 

moves this Court to enter an Order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in the 

Philippines pursuant to the terms of the binding Employment Agreements, dismissing this action, 

and granting such other relief deemed just and proper. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jerry D. Hamilton

Jerry D. Hamilton

Florida Bar No. 970700

jhamilton@hamiltonmillerlaw.com

Evan Gutwein

Florida Bar No. 58741

egutwein@hamiltonmillerlaw.com

Annalisa Gutierrez

Florida Bar No. 97940

agutierrez@hamiltonmillerlaw.com

Gilda M. Chavez

Florida Bar No. 973173

gchavez@hamiltonmillerlaw.com

HAMILTON, MILLER & BIRTHISEL, LLP

150 Southeast Second Avenue, Suite 1200 

Miami, Florida 33131-2332

Telephone: (305) 379-3686

Facsimile: (305) 379-3690

Attorneys for Defendant

Sanford L. Bohrer 

Florida Bar No. 160643

sbohrer@hklaw.com

Alex M. Gonzalez 

Florida Bar No. 0991200

alex.gonzalez@hklaw.com

Scott D. Ponce 

Florida Bar No. 0169528

sponce@hklaw.com

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP

701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300

Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone: 305- 374-8500

Facsimile: 305- 789-7799 

Attorneys for Defendant

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2020 Page 12 of 13
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22133-JEM

- 13 -

HAMILTON, MILLER & BIRTHISEL, LLP

150 Southeast Second Avenue, Suite 1200, · Miami, Florida 33131 · Telephone: 305-379-3686 · Facsimile: 305-379-3690

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 6, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing document 

with the Clerk of the court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being 

served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the attached Service List in the 

manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or 

in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive 

electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.

/s/ Jerry D. Hamilton

 Jerry D. Hamilton

SERVICE LIST

Raul G. Delgado, II 

Florida Bar No. 094004 

raul@cruiselawyermiami.com 

Raulsr@cruiselawyermiami.com 

heidi@cruiselawyermiami.com 

filing@cruiselawyermiami.com 

Delgado Trial Attorneys 

10661 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 210 

Miami, Florida 33176 

Telephone No.: (305) 596-7911 

Cell: (305) 972-0817 

Facsimile: (305) 397-2654 

Toll Free: 1 (877) 372-0817 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Jerry D. Hamilton

Florida Bar No. 970700

jhamilton@hamiltonmillerlaw.com 

Evan Gutwein

Florida Bar No. 58741

egutwein@hamiltonmillerlaw.com 

Annalisa Gutierrez

Florida Bar No. 97940

agutierrez@hamiltonmillerlaw.com

Gilda M. Chavez

Florida Bar No. 973173

gchavez@hamiltonmillerlaw.com

Hamilton, Miller & Birthisel, LLP

150 Southeast Second Avenue

Suite 1200 

Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone: (305) 379-3686

Facsimile: (305) 379-3690

Attorneys for Defendant

Sanford L. Bohrer 

Florida Bar No. 160643

sbohrer@hklaw.com

Alex M. Gonzalez 

Florida Bar No. 0991200

alex.gonzalez@hklaw.com

Scott D. Ponce 

Florida Bar No. 0169528

sponce@hklaw.com

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP

701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300

Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone: 305- 374-8500

Facsimile: 305- 789-7799 

Attorneys for Defendant

Case 1:20-cv-22133-JEM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2020 Page 13 of 13