IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 20-cv-22911-BLOOM/Louis

ANTONIO SISCA,

Plaintiff, 

v.

HAL MARITIME, LTD and

PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD.,

Defendant.

________________________________________/

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Defendants, HAL MARITIME, LTD (“HAL”) and PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD. 

(“Princess”) (collectively “Defendants”), hereby petition the Court to enter an Order directing 

Plaintiff, ANTONIO SISCA (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), to proceed to arbitration in accordance with 

the terms of his Employment Agreement. In support, Defendants state as follows:

I. Introduction

Plaintiff, a foreign seaman and citizen of Italy, filed a six-count Complaint alleging he was 

employed by Defendant to work as a seaman aboard Defendant’s vessel. See Complaint (ECF No. 

1-2) at ¶¶5-6. Plaintiff alleges that he fell and was injured due to Defendant’s negligence. Prior to 

boarding the vessel, Plaintiff entered into an Employment Agreement in which agreed he had 

reviewed and was bound by the terms and conditions set forth in a Seafarer’s Employment

Agreement (“SEA”). See Employment Agreement attached as Exhibit 1. Among other things, the 

SEA requires that Plaintiff arbitrate any and all claims or disputes in Italy, his country of 

citizenship. See Seagoing Employment Agreement – Terms and Conditions, May 1, 2019 Version,

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2020 Page 1 of 8
1

(“SEA”) at Article 18B, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 

Notwithstanding that there was a binding agreement to arbitrate the dispute in Italy,

Plaintiff instead filed thislawsuit in the Circuit Court for the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for MiamiDade County, Florida. The action was originally entitled Antonio Sisca v. HAL Maritime, Ltd and

Princess Cruise Lines Ltd. (Corp.), case number 2020-013113-CA-01. On July 14, 2020,

Defendants filed a notice of removal to federal court. The foreign arbitration mandated between

Plaintiff and Defendants in his Employment Agreement and SEA is subject to the provisions of

The Convention of the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards on June 10, 1958

(the “Convention”). Accordingly, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction by virtue of 28 U.S.C

§1331, 28 U.S.C. §1333, and 9 U.S.C. §202 et seq.

II. Plaintiff’s Claims Must Proceed To Arbitration

Princess and HAL have been aggrieved by Plaintiff’s refusal to submit his claims to 

arbitration. By refusing to submit his claims to arbitration as provided in the SEA, Defendants

have been deprived of the benefit and value of the arbitration provision to which Plaintiff agreed. 

For the reasons set forth below, the Court should compel arbitration in accordance with the SEA.

A. The SEA Mandates Arbitration of this Dispute

Plaintiff signed an Employment Contract to work aboard Defendant’s vessel in which he 

agreed that while working aboard the vessel he was bound by the terms and conditions set forth in 

the SEA. The Employment Agreement Plaintiff signed states: 

THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ATTACHED HERETO (MAY 

1, 2019 VERSION) APPLY TO, AND ARE AN INTEGRAL 

PART OF, THIS AGREEMENT. BY SIGNING BELOW, YOU 

ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN AFFORDED THE 

OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

WHICH SHALL BE SENT TO YOU IN EMAIL AND/OR 

OTHERWISE AVAILABLE FOR YOU TO ACCESS ON 

EFLEET, THE COMPANY’S INTRANET SYSTEM (UNDER 

HUMAN RESOURCES). YOU SPECIFICALLY 

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2020 Page 2 of 8
2

ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ AND AGREE 

TO THE ARBITRATION PROVISION CONTAINED IN 

ARTICLE 18B AND THE PRIVACY 

NOTICE/ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 

20 OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS. YOU FURTHER 

ACKNOLEDGE AND AGREE THAT: (1) YOU HAVE BEEN 

AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEEK ADVICE ON THIS 

AGREEMENT BEFORE SIGNING IT; (2) YOU HAVE 

RECEIVED THIS AGREEMENT IN PRINTED OR 

ELECTRONIC FORM; (3) AN ELECTRONIC SCAN, COPY OR 

FACSIMILE OF THIS AGREEMENT AND ITS 

ATTACHMENTS SHALL BE AS VALID AS THE ORIGINAL; 

(4) YOU HAVE RECEIVED A FULL COPY OF THIS 

AGREEMENT CONSISTING OF THIS PAGE PLUS THE 

ATTACHED 17-PAGE TERMS AND CONDITIONS; AND (5) 

COMPANY’S RETENTION OF THIS AGREEMENT IN PAPER 

OR ELECTRONIC FORM IS DEEMED CONCLUSIVE AND 

IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED 

AND SIGNED THIS AGREEMENT.

See Employment Agreement, Ex. 1. By executing the Employment Agreement, Plaintiff agreed to 

the terms and conditions contained therein and in the referenced SEA including its arbitration 

provision contained in Article 18B. Plaintiff agreed he would arbitrate any disputes in his country 

of citizenship, Italy. Article 18B of the SEA is entitled “Arbitration” and states that Plaintiff “[a]ny 

disputes whatsoever relating to or in any way arising out of this Agreement or [his] service on 

board a ship, including but not limited to wage disputes, property damage, personal injury, death 

or any other claim, ... no matter how described, pleaded or styled, shall be resolved by binding 

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. 3, 1970 U.S.T. 

LEXIS 115, exclusively in [his] country of citizenship...” See SEA, Ex. 2, at Article 18B

(emphasis in original.) The claims asserted against Defendants clearly fall within the agreement 

to arbitrate made between the parties. Plaintiff has violated his employment contract by filing this 

lawsuit in court rather than submitting his claims to arbitration in Italy as mandated by the 

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2020 Page 3 of 8
3

Employment Aontract.

B. The Eleventh Circuit Has Clearly Established That Crewmember Cases 

Should Be Compelled to Arbitration 

Despite a plethora of cases in which plaintiffs have attempted to circumvent cruise line 

arbitration agreements, the Eleventh Circuit has made it clear that pursuant to the Convention all 

such cases must be compelled to arbitration and that most defenses to arbitration cannot be 

considered in response to a cruise line’s motion to compel arbitration. See e.g., Lindo v. NCL 

(Bahamas), Ltd., 652 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2011); Suazo v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., 822 F.3d 543 

(11th Cir. 2016); Escobar v. Celebration Cruise Operator, Inc., 805 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2015); 

Wong v. Carnival Corp. 599 Fed.Appx. 355 (11th Cir. 2015); Vera v. Cruise Ships Catering and 

Services Intern., N.V., 594 Fed.Appx. 963 (11th Cir. 2014); Trifonov v. MSC Mediterranean 

Shipping Co. S.A., 590 Fed.Appx. 842 (11th Cir. 2014); Paucar v. MSC Crociere S.A., 552 

Fed.Appx. 872 (11th Cir. 2014); Quiroz v. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A., 522 Fed.Appx. 

655 (11th Cir. 2013); Arauz v. Carnival Corp. 466 Fed.Appx. 815 (11th Cir. 2012); Maxwell v. 

NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., 2011 WL 928737, at *1 (11th Cir. 2011); Henriquez v. NCL (Bahamas), 

Ltd., 440 F.App’x 714, 716 (11th Cir. 2011); Bautista v Star Cruises, 396 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 

2005). 

C. 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-22911-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2020 Page 4 of 8
4

Id. at 629; See also Adolfo v. Carnival Corp., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24143 (S. D. Fla. Mar. 17, 

2003) (relying on Mitsubishi and ruling that “[q]uestions 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”). 

International arbitration agreements are subject to the Convention on the Recognition and 

Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “Convention”). The United States and Italy have 

both implemented the Convention—the United States through the enactment of 9 U.S.C. §§ 201-

208, and Italy through Law No. 62 of 19 January 1968. The Convention provides that a court 

possessing jurisdiction under the Convention may direct arbitration be held in accordance with the 

agreement at any place therein provided for. 

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

inquiry” in deciding whether to compel arbitration pursuant to the Convention. Lindo v. NCL, 652 

at 1272; Bautista v. Star Cruises, 396 at 1294; see also Francisco v. Stolt Achievement MT, 293 

F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2002); Ledee v. Ceramiche Ragno, 684 F.2d 184 (1st Cir. 1982). The Court 

must order arbitration if the following four jurisdictional prerequisites 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, and the relationship envisages 

performance and enforcement abroad, and has a reasonable relation with a foreign state. See Lindo, 

652 F.3d at 1272; Bautista, 396 F.3d at 1294; Std. Bent Glass Corp. v. Glassrobots Oy, 333 F.3d 

440, 449 (11th Cir. 2003). Here, this Honorable Court must compel arbitration as required by the 

terms of Plaintiff’s Employment Agreement (which incorporates the SEA), and the Convention. 

Here, all four jurisdictional prerequisites are all clearly met, and therefore this dispute is subject to 

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2020 Page 5 of 8
5

arbitration. 

D. This Action Mandates Arbitration Because the Four Jurisdictional 

Prerequisites Are All Met 

Arbitration is mandated because the four jurisdictional prerequisites are met in this matter.

See Bautista, 396 F.3d at 1295 n. 7 (listing jurisdictional requirements); Lindo, 652 F.3d at 1271-

73 (analyzing Bautista and the jurisdictional requirements); Francisco v. Stolt Achievement MT, 

293 at 272; see also 9 U.S.C. §§ 201-208. First, there is a written agreement to arbitrate this 

dispute. The SEA specifically states that any and all claims shall be subject to arbitration. See 

Exhibits 1 and 2. Second, Italy adopted the Convention on January 19, 1968. Third, the agreement 

to arbitrate arises from a commercial legal relationship. The courts have ruled that crewmember 

employment contracts constitute a commercial legal relationship for the purposes of compelling 

arbitration. See Francisco, 293 F.3d at 273-74; Bautista, 396 F.3d at 1294-1301; Suazo v. NCL, 

822 F.3d at 550 (Eleventh Circuit ruling that the plaintiff’s employment with NCL was a 

commercial relationship); Escobar v. Celebration Cruise Operator, Inc., 805 F.3d at 1286 

(Eleventh Circuit ruling the four jurisdictional requirements were met); Trifonov v. MSC, 590 Fed.

Appx. at 844 (Eleventh Circuit ruling “each of the four jurisdictional prerequisites has been met”). 

Each of these courts resolved this issue by concluding that the contract of employment and 

agreement to arbitrate therein arose out of a commercial legal relationship. Fourth, a party to the 

agreement is not a U.S. citizen. Although applicable criteria only require that one party be a foreign 

citizen or entity, in this case everyone is foreign: Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Italy; HAL is 

incorporated in the British Virgin Islands; and Princess is incorporated in Bermuda. See Exhibit 1; 

see also Complaint (ECF No. 1-2) at ¶¶5-6; Washington State Certificate of Authority (ECF No. 

1-4). Since the four jurisdictional prerequisites as set forth in Bautista and Francisco are met, the 

Court should enter an Order compelling Plaintiff to submit to arbitration in accordance with the 

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2020 Page 6 of 8
6

terms of his Employment Contract.

E. Courts in the Southern District Compel Arbitration in Similar Circumstances

Courts in the Southern District compel arbitration under similar circumstances. Scores of 

courts in the Southern District have enforced cruise line crewmember arbitration agreements. See, 

e.g., Galeano v. Celebration Cruise Operator, Inc., No. 14-CV-81223, 2014 WL 12479278, at *1 

(S.D. Fla. Dec. 12, 2014); Pysarenko v. Carnival Corp., No. 14-20010-CIV, 2014 WL 1745048 

(S.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2014), aff’d, 581 F. App’x 844 (11th Cir. 2014); Dockeray v. Carnival Corp., 

724 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (S.D. Fla. 2010); Yucra v. Carnival Corporation, No. 10-20870-Civ, 2010 

WL 11586522 (S.D. Fla. May 18, 2010); Hodgson v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 706 F. Supp. 

2d 1248 (S.D. Fla. 2009); In each of these cases the court compelled arbitration, dismissing claims 

brought by seamen. See also Lindo v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., 652 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2011) and 

Henriquez v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., 440 F. App’x 714 (11th Cir. 2011). 

III. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants HAL and Princess respectfully petition this 

Court to enter an Order dismissing the instant action and compelling Plaintiff to proceed to 

arbitration in Italy pursuant to the terms of his Employment Agreement and Seafarer’s 

Employment Agreement.

Dated: July 21, 2020

Miami, Florida 

Respectfully submitted,

MALTZMAN & PARTNERS, P.A.

By: /s/ Steve Holman 

Jeffrey B. Maltzman, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 0048860

jeffreym@maltzmanpartners.com 

Steve Holman, Esq.

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2020 Page 7 of 8
7

Florida Bar No. 547840

steveh@maltzmanpartners.com

55 Miracle Mile, Suite 300

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Tel: 305-779-5665 / Fax: 305-779-5664

 Attorneys for Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the 

Court via CM/ECF on this 21st day of July, 2020. I also certify that the foregoing was served on 

all counsel or parties of record on the attached Service List 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 electronic Notices of Filing. 

By: /s/ Steve Holman 

Steve Holman, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 547840

steveh@maltzmanpartners.com

SERVICE LIST

CASE NO.: 20-cv-22911-BLOOM/Louis

Julio J. Ayala, Esq.

crewesq@crewadvocacy.com

Crewmember & Maritime Advocacy Center, PA

113 Almeria Avenue

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Phone: 305-374-9099

Fax: 305-374-5099

Attorney for Plaintiff

Jeffrey B. Maltzman, Esq.

jeffreym@maltzmanpartners.com 

Steve Holman, Esq.

steveh@maltzmanpartners.com

55 Miracle Mile, Suite 300

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Phone: 305-779-5665

Fax: 305-779-5664

Attorneys for Defendant

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2020 Page 8 of 8