[PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 62 3

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cv -2 33 86 -ASG INACIO LOBO, JOHN GOMEZ, etal., ea chon th ei r own be ha lf a ndon be ha lf o f al l o th er cu rren t an d fo rm er em pl oyees o f Cel eb rit y

Cru is es , Inc . si m il arl y

si tu at ed , Pl ai nt iff s, INACIO LOBO, JOHN GOMEZ, JOAO RODRIGUES, RAIMUNDO REBELLO, ANTONIO MENEZ ES, LAZARO D'COSTA, MENINO SERRAO, LUIS PEREIRA, ALEXIO FERNANDE S, AGNELO FERNANDES, MINGUEL PEREIRA, Pl ai nt iff s - Ap pe ll an ts , ve rs us Case: 10-10406 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 1 of 22CELEBRITY CRUIS ES, INC.,

FEDERAZIONE ITAL IANAN TRANSPORTI, Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 40 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -2 29 91 -PCH JOHN GOMEZ, JOAO RODRIGUES, etal., ea chon th ei r own be ha lf a ndon be ha lf o f al l o th er cu rren t an d fo rm er em pl oyees o f Cel eb rit y

Cru is es , Inc . si m il arl y

si tu at ed , Pl ai nt iff s, JOHN GOMEZ, JOAO RODRIGUES, RAIMUNDO REBELLO, AGENEL O ANTON IO MENEZES, LAZARO D'COSTA, MENINO SERRAO, LUIS PEREIRA, ALEXIO FERNANDE S, AGNELO FERNANDES, MINGUEL PEREIRA, Pl ai nt iff s - Ap pe ll an ts , ve rs us
2 Case: 10-10406 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 2 of 22CELEBRITY CRUIS ES, INC., Defen da nt- App el le e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 7, 2 01 3) Befo re TJ OFLAT, PRYOR an d R IPPLE, Cir cu itJu dg es . * TJOFLAT, Cir cu itJu dg e: I. A. InLob o v . Cel eb rit y

Cru is es , Inc . (“ Lob o I” ), 48 8 F .3d89 1 (1 1t h C ir. 20 07 ), we he ldth atth e Co nv en ti on on th e Rec og ni ti on an d En fo rcem en t o f Fo rei gn Arbi tra l Award s (“ Co nv en ti on ”) an d i ts im pl em en ti ng leg is la ti on , 9 U.S.C. §§ 20 2- 20 8, s up erce de d t he Seam an ’s W ag e Act , 46 U.S.C. § 1 03 13 , and requi redth e Dis tri ctCo urt t o g ran t a m ot io n t o c om pe l arbi tra ti on of afor ei gn se am an ’s cla im

forwage s al le ge dl y

du e und er a co ll ect iv e b arg ai ni ng ag reem en t. W e acc or di ng ly affirm edth e Dis tri ctCo urt’s o rd er co m pe ll in g t he arb it rat io n o f a

Honora ble Kenne th F. Ripple, United States Circuit J udg e for the Seventh Circuit, * sitti ngby designation. 3 Case: 10-10406 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 3 of 22cab in st eward ’s cla im forwage s— in th e fo rm

of t ip s p as se ng ers pa idforhi s se rv ic es —tha t h is em

pl oyer, a cru is e li ne , all eg ed ly w it hh el d. 1 The cab in st ewardwas In aci o Lo bo . After h is cas e was subm it te d t o arb it rat io n, Lo bo be cam e d is sa ti sf ie d wi th th e rep res en ta ti on hi s u ni on , Fed eraz io ne Ita li an anTran sp orti (“ FIT”), was pro vi di ng hi m ; s o h e returne d t o t he Dis tri ctCo urt—th is ti m e wit h acla ss act io n ag ai ns t the un io n a ndth e cru is e li ne 2
un de r § 3 01 of t he Labo r Man ag em en t Re la ti on s Act(“ LMRA”) , 29 U.S.C. § 18 5, ass ert in g b ot h h y

br idan d n on -h y

br idcla im s fo r th e ti ps he an d o th er cabi n 3 st eward s h adno t re cei ve d. Lob o v . Cel eb rit y Cru is es , Inc . (“ Lob o II ”), No . 08
- 4 23 38 6 (S .D. Fl. 2 00 8) . His h y br idcla im

ag ai ns t h is em

pl oyer, Cel eb rit y

Cru is es , In c. (“ Cel eb rity ”), was th atitbre ach edth e wag e p ro vi si on s o f th e co ll ect iv e

L obo I was brought as a c lass action, but the plaintiff did not see k class ce rtification. 1 As in L obo I , the plaintiff did not seek c lass cer tification. 2 L obo’s complaint invoked the District Court’s subjec t matter jurisdiction under 28 3 U.S.C. § 1331 (fede ral que stion) and 28 U.S.C. § 1333 (admiralty ). A hy brid claim is a suit in which a plaintiff ma y simult aneously

asser t a claim ag ainst 4 his employ er a

nd a cla im ag ainst his union. This ty pe of c laim supersede s the Convention and permits a suit in feder al cour t. See DelCostello v. Int’l Br otherhood of T eamster s, 462 U.S. 151, 163-65, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 2290-92, 76 L .Ed.2d 476 (1983) ( “Or dinarily . . . an employee is require d to attempt to ex haust any grieva nce or arbitration remedies pr ovided in the collec tivebarg ainingagree ment. . . . [But] when the union r epre sentingthe employee in the grieva nce/a rbitration proc edure. . . brea ch[es] i ts duty of fa ir repr esentation . . . an employee ma y bringsuit ag ainst both the employer a nd the union, notwithstanding the outc ome or fina lity of the grieva nce or arbitration procee ding.” ). 4 Case: 10-10406 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 4 of 22ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t (“ CBA”) itha d wi th FIT. His hybri d c la im ag ai ns t FI T was th atitbre ach edth e dut y

of f ai r rep res en ta ti on itowedhi m un de r § 9 (a) o f th e Nati on al Labo r Rel at io ns Act (“NLRA”), 2 9 U.S.C. § 15 9. Lob o’s n on -h y br id 5 cl ai m was l od ge d a ga in stFIT; i t re pl ic at edth e § 9(a ) al le ga ti on s o f th e h y br id cl ai m . Lob o a ndth e m em

be rs of t he pu ta ti ve cla ss were ci ti zen s an d re si de nt s o f In di a. FIT is anIta li anun io n. Ce le br it y is a Lib eri anco rp or at io n; it s crui se sh ip s are r eg is te redinth e Bah am as . The d efen da nt s, ci ti ng Ben z v . Com pa ni a Nav ie ra Hid al go , S.A., 35 3 U.S. 1 38 , 77 S.Ct . 69 9, 1 L.Ed.2d70 9 (1 95 7) an d M cCu ll oc h v. So ci ed adNaci on al de Mari ne ro s d e Hon du ras , 37 2 U.S. 1 0, 8 3 S .Ct. 6 71 , 9 L.Ed.2 d 5 47 (19 63 ), se pa rat el y m ov edth e Dis tri ctCo urt t o d is m is s Lo bo ’s co m pl ai ntun de r Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 2( b) (6 ) fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m forrel ie f. FIT al so m ov edth e co urt t o d is m is s i t fr om th e cas e und er Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 2( b) (5 ) fo r in su ffi ci en t s erv ic e o f pr oc es s. Inan or de r en te redon Sep te m

be r 10 , 20 09 , th e co urt g ran te d F IT’s Rul e 1 2( b) (5 )
m ot io n a nddi sm is se d the co m pl ai ntag ai ns t i t wi th ou t p reju di ce. Itag reedwith

This claim arises unde r fe dera l common law. See Ma rquez v. Scree n Actors Guild, Inc., 5 525 U.S. 33, 44, 119 S.C t. 292, 299, 142 L .Ed.2d 242 (1998) ( “When a labor org anization has been se lected a s the exclusive repre sentative of theemployees in a barg ainingunit, it has a duty , implied from its status under § 9(a) of the NLRA as the exclusive repr esentative of the employees in the unit, to represent a ll members fa irly .”). 5 Case: 10-10406 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 5 of 22bo th de fen da nt s t ha t Be nz for ecl os edLob o’s h y br idcla im s; as B en z expl ic it ly he ld , th e LMRA d oe s n otap pl y to lab ordi sp ut es be twee n fo rei gncrew m em be rs an d afor ei gnsh ip own er. 3 53 U.S. at 1 43 , 77 S.Ct . at 7 02 . The co urt the refo re di sm is se d t he co m

pl ai ntas t o C el eb rit y

with p reju di ce. B. Afte r pe rfec ti ng servi ce o f pr oc es s o n F IT, Lob o fi le d an a m en de d co m pl ai ntag ai ns t FI T alo ne . He reas se rte d ano n- hybri d b reac h o f fai r rep res en ta ti on cla im

un de r § 9 (a) a s wel l as un de r fed eral co m m on law. He al so ad de d ast at e la w cla im

forbre ach of adu ty of “ go odfai than d fa ir d eal in g.” FIT 6
m ov edth e Dis tri ctCo urt t o d is m is s the am en de d c om pl ai ntun de r Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pr oc edur e 1 2( b) (1 ) fo r la ckof s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on . On Ju ly 7, 20 10 , th e co urt g ran te d t he m ot io n. In it s v ie w, si nc e th e n on -h y br idcla im

co ul d n otbe br ou gh t u nd er the LMRA an d t he NLRA, th e co urt l ack edth e subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ne ed edto en te rta in th e am en de d c om pl ai nt . On Ju ly 8, 20 10 , th e Dis tri ctCo urt, i n c on fo rm an ce wi th it s o rd ers of S ep te m be r 10 , 20 09 , andJu ly 7, 20 10 , ent eredfin al jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Cel eb rit y an d F IT.

L obo brought the state law c laim under the D istrict Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, 6 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The CBA c ontained a pr ovision stating that the agree ment was to be construed unde r F lorida law. The amende d complaint alleg ed that par ties to a contra ct ar e obligated to deal with one a nother in g ood faith and f airly . 6 Case: 10-10406 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 6 of 22C.

Whi le Lob o II was p en di ng inth e Dis tri ctCo urt, J oh n Go m ez an d n in e o f th e cab in st eward s n am edinth atcas e b ro ug hta cl as s ac ti on ag ai ns t Ce le br it y un de r th e Sea m an ’s W ag e Act , see ki ng da m ag es inth e am ou ntof t he ti ps Cel eb rit y ha d a ll eg ed ly w it hh el d. Go m ez v . Cel eb rity Cru is es , Inc ., No. 09 -2 29 91 (S.D. Fl. 2 00 9) . Rathe r th anin vo ki ng th e arb it rat io n p ro vi si on of t he CBA, 7 Cel eb rit y m ov edth e co urt t o d is m is s the cas e und er the do ctrin e o f res jud ic at a. Cel eb rit y arg ue d t ha t the pl ai nt iff

s s ho ul d h av e, bu t d idno t, as se rt t he ir S eam an ’s W ag e Actcla im

inLob o II . The Di st ric t Co urt ag reedan d o n Dec em be r 23 , 20 09 , di sm is se d t he cas e wit h p reju di ce. 8 Gom ez an d t he ni ne othe r cab in st eward s wh o h adjoi ne d h im inLob o II an d Go m ez (t he “ St eward s” ) ap pe al edth e Dis tri ctCo urt’s jud gm en ts inbo th cas es , App eal Nos . 10 -1 36 23 an d 1 0- 10 40 6, re sp ect iv el y . W e ad dr es s the ap pe al s se pa rat el y , beg in ni ng with Lo bo II.

Inacio L obo was not included a s a name d plaintiff bec ause he and Celebrity had settled 7 the claim he ha d brought in L obo Iand, ag ain, in L obo I I . The c ourt did so without having f irst cer tified the plaintiffs’ c lass. 8 7 Case: 10-10406 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 7 of 22II. A. The hybri d c la im s i n Lo bo II were d is m is se d u nd er Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m . W e rev ie w Rul e 1 2( b) (6 ) di sm is sa ls de no vo , acce pt in g t he al le ga ti on s i n t he co m

pl ai ntas t ru e an d c on st ru in g t he m inth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p la in ti ff. Hil l v . W hi te , 32 1 F .3d13 34 , 13 35 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). The Dis tri ctCo urt d is m is se d t he Ste ward s’ hybridcla im s ag ai ns t Ce le br it y an d F IT aft er d et erm in in g t ha t the Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on s i n B en z an d McC ul lo chfor ecl os edth e ap pl ic at io n o f th e LMRA an d the NLRA to wage di sp ut es be twee n fo rei gnsh ip s an d fo rei gn sea m en . W e ag ree. 9 It i s wel l-s et tl edth atth es e st atut es do no t ap pl y to who ll y -fo rei gn di sp ut es . InBen z, th e Supr em e Co urt co nc lu de d t ha t “ Co ng res s d idno t fa sh io n [t he LMRA] to res ol ve lab ordi sp ut es be twee n n at io na ls of o th er co un tri es op erat in g s hi ps un de r fo rei gn laws . The wh ol e b ack gr ou ndof t he Act i s co nc ern edwith i ndus tri al st rif e b etweenAm eri can em

pl oyers an d e m

pl oyees.” 35 3 U.S. at14 3- 44 , 77 S.Ct . at70 2. Th e Ben z co urt fo un d thi s l eg is la ti ve hi st ory co m pe ll in g, as “ in es cap ab ly

The LMRA was ac tually a series of ame ndments to the NL RA. Be causethe implied 9 duty of fa ir repr esentation has been f ound under § 9( a) of

the orig inal NLRA, and the ve hicle to bringa hy

brid claim has be en found unde r the late r addition of § 301 of the LMRA, we join the parties a nd the District Court in disti nguishing be tween the acts. 8 Case: 10-10406 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 8 of 22de sc rib [in g] th e b ou nd ari es of t he Act as in cl ud in g o nl y th e worki ng m enof o ur own co un try andit s p os se ss io ns .” Id . at 1 44 , 77 S.Ct . at 7 03 . Sim il arl y , th e Supr em e Co urt h as he ldth atth e NLRA do es no t ex te ndto for ei gn crews work in g ab oa rdfor ei gnsh ip s b ecau se su chanap pl ic at io n wo ul d i nt erfe re wi th th e “ in te rn al
m an ag em en t an d a ffai rs ” o f th e sh ip . McCu ll oc h, 3 72 U.S. at 2 0- 21 , 83 S.Ct . at 67 7. Th us , as t he Supr em e Co urt i nd ic at edinSp ect orv. No rweg ia n C ru is e Lin e Ltd ., 54 5 U.S. 1 19 , 13 0, 1 25 S.Ct . 21 69 , 21 77 , 16 2 L.Ed .2d97 (20 05 ), Ben z an d McC ul lo chst an d fo r th e p ro po si ti on th at“ [a]bs en t a c le ar s ta te m en t o f co ng res si on al in te nt , gen eral st atut es [li ke th e LMRA o r th e NLRA] m ay no t ap pl y to for ei gn -fl ag ve ss el s i ns of ar as th ey reg ul at e m at te rs th atin vo lv e o nl y th e in te rn al ord er an d d is ci pl in e o f th e v es se l.” W e n eedno t l ab or

lo ng to de te rm in e whe th er a wag e d is pu te be twee n a fo rei gn -fl ag ve ss el an d i ts for ei gn crew fa ll s wi th in th e in te rn al affa irs of ash ip . Ben z an d M cCu ll oc h h av e p la in ly ans weredth atqu es ti on . See Be nz , 35 3 U.S. at 14 2- 44 , 77 S.Ct . at 7 01 -0 2 (h ol di ng th e LMRA i napp li cab le to th e p ic ke ti ng of a fo rei gnsh ip op erat eden ti rel y by forei gn sea m en ); M cCu ll oc h, 3 72 U.S. at 1 2- 13 , 83 S.Ct . at 6 72 -7 3 (h ol di ng th atth e Nat io na l Lab orRel at io ns Bo ardco ul d n ot or de r a u ni onele ct io n b ecau se th e NLRA di d n otap pl y to for ei gn sea m enab oa rd fo rei gnve ss el s) . As th e Supr em e Co urt h as m ad e cl ear, the LMRA an d NLRA d o 9 Case: 10-10406 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 9 of 22no t ap pl y

to “ wag e d is pu te s ar is in g o n fo rei gn ve ss el s b etweenna ti on al s o f ot he r co un tri es ,” ev enwhen “ th e v es se l co m es withi n o urterrit or ia l wat ers .” Ben z, 1 0 35 3 U.S. at14 2, 7 7 S .Ct. at70 2. Here, the Ste ward s ar e en ga ge d i n awage di sp ut e wit h t he ir e m pl oyer, Cel eb rit y , andth ei r labo r un io n, FI T. All p art ie s i n t hi s d is pu te are fo rei gn . The ho ld in gs of B en z an d M cCu ll oc h c on tro l. The Ste ward s co nt en d t ha t Be nz is in ap pl ic ab le . They at te m ptto di st in gu is h t he cas e b y

no ti ng th atBen z co nc ern edth e p ic ke ti ng of s hi ps , wher eas th e St eward s’ cla im

co nc ern s a c on tra ctua l b reac h o ve r wag es . The s eam enin Ben z, ho wev er, were pi ck et in g b ecau se th ey “ de m an de d t ha t the ir t erm of s erv ic e be reduc ed , th ei r wag es be in crea se d, an d m or e fav or ab le co nd it io ns of em pl oym en t b e g ran te d.” 35 3 U.S. at13 9, 7 7 S .Ct. at70 0. J us t l ik e th e St eward s, th e Ben z p la in ti ffs were en ga ge d i n (a m on g o th er thi ng s) a wag e d is pu te ari si ng fro m th ei r em pl oym en t co nt ractwith t he ir f or ei gn -fl ag ve ss el . The LMRA do es no t ap pl y to th es e d is pu te s. The Ste ward s n ex t ar gu e th at , eve n i f Ben z is on po in t, i t was im pl ic it ly ov erru le d b y

Hell en ic Lin es , Ltd . v. Rh od it is , 39 8 U.S. 3 06 , 90 S.Ct . 17 31 , 26
The Stewa

rds ra ise the argument that the pre sumption aga inst ex trater ritorial 1 0 application should not apply here . This contention is inapposite. The question of a pplicability turns on the identity

of par ties, not whether the ir conduc t occur red w ithin United St ates ter ritory . 10 Case: 10-10406 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 10 of 22L.Ed.2 d 2 52 (19 70 ). Acco rd in g t o t he Ste ward s, Hel le ni c Lin es rep la cedth e Ben z

an d M cCu ll oc h “ in te rn al affa irs ” fra m ewo rkwith ach oi ce o f la w ana lysis de te rm in edby the po in ts of c on ta ctanem pl oyer ha s wi th th e Uni te d S ta te s. Th is
m od e o f an al y si s was reject edby the Supr em e Co urt i n M cCu ll oc h. 3 72 U.S. at 19 n.9 , 83 S.Ct . at 6 76 n.9 (no ti ng th atpo in ts of c on ta ctan al y si s i s i napp ro pr ia te whe n app li cat io n o f th e NLRA wou ldin te rfer e wit h t he in te rn al ord er o f th e sh ip , th ou gh co ul d b e ap pl ie d t o c on te xt s ar is in g u nd er the Jo ne s Act ). Hell en ic Lin es di d n otdi sturb M cCu ll oc h’s h ol di ng . In Hel le ni c Lin es th e Supr em e Co urt fo un d th atto rt c la im s b ro ug htun de r th e Jo ne s Actco ul d b e m ai nt ai ne d b y a fo rei gn se am anag ai ns t a f

or ei gn sh ip . 37 2 U.S. at30 8- 31 0, 8 3 S .Ct. at17 33 -3 4. Th e Supr em e Co urt, h owe ve r, ha s n otex te nd edth e Hel le ni c Lin es an al y si s t o m ari ti m e co nt ractcas es —s uc h a s t hi s ca se —an d t hi s co urt h as expr es sl y de cl in edto do so . See Dre sdne r Ban k AG v . M/V Ol ym pi a Voyage r, 44 6 F .3d13 77 , 13 81 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (d ecl in in g t o e xt en d t he Laur it zen an d Hel le ni c Lin es po in ts of c on ta ct an al y si s t o m ari ti m e co nt ract s) . Ind eed , th e Supr em e Co urt re affi rm edth e reas on in g o f Ben z an d M cCu ll oc h i n S pe ct or —a c as e p os t-d at in g Hel le ni c Lin es —wh ere i t d et erm in edth e ap pl ic ab il it y of the Am eri can s wi th Dis ab il it ie s Act t o fo rei gn sh ip s. 5 45 U.S. at 1 29 -3 0, 1 25 S.Ct . at 2 17 7. Th e an al y si s i n B en z an d M cCu ll oc h c on ti nu es to be th e rel ev an t i nqui ry . 11 Case: 10-10406 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 11 of 22The Ste ward s cl ai m th at , eve n i f Ben z an d M cCu ll oc h c on tro l, the in te rn al affa irs of C el eb rit y ’s sh ip s wo ul d n otbe di srup te d wer e we to ap pl y th e LMRA an d t he NLRA to th is di sp ut e. They argu e th atap pl y in g t he se st atut es wou ld
m erel y co m pe l the pa y in g o f wag es , no t af fectth e “ m ov em en t an d fu nc ti on in g” of th e sh ip s. Th is arg um en t m is ap pr eh en ds th e in te rn al affa irs in qu iry. Feder al co urts are n otch arg edwith p red ic ti ng th e o pe rat io na l co ns eque nc es of app lying th es e st atut es on a cas e-b y -cas e b as is . Nor h av e th e St eward s p res en te d s up po rt su gg es ti ng ot he rwis e. To ad op t thi s re as on in g wo ul d l eadto th e k in d o f in qu iry in to th e “ in te rn al ord er an d d is ci pl in e” tha t M cCu ll oc h c on cl ud edwou ldbe

“ en ti rel y in feas ib le inactua l p ract ic e.” 3 72 U.S. at 1 9, 8 3 S .Ct. at67 6. Be cau se th e Supr em e Co urt h as alr eady de te rm in edth atwage di sp ut es be twee n afor ei gn ve ss el an d i ts for ei gn crew fa ll withi n t he in te rn al affa irs of ash ip , we are fo recl os edfro m

rev is it in g t he qu es ti on . Ben z, 35 3 U.S. at14 2- 43 , 77 S.Ct . at 7 02 . The Ste ward s al so co nt en d t ha t ap pl y in g t he se st atut es wil l n otne ga ti ve ly im pa ctin te rn at io na l co m it y . This arg um en t ad dr es se s the can on of s ta tu to ry co ns tru ct io n app li edinBen z an d M cCu ll oc h t ha t, ab se ntanex pr es s s ta te m en t fro m Co ng res s, we d o n otco ns tru e st atut es to ex te ndto di sp ut es be twee n fo rei gn pa rti es wher e th e Uni te d S ta te s m ai nt ai ns no in te res t. See Sp ect or , 54 5 U.S. at 13 1- 32 , 12 5 S .Ct. at21 78 (“ It i s re as on ab le to pre su m e Co ng res s i nt en ds no 12 Case: 10-10406 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 12 of 22in te rfer en ce wi th m at te rs th atare p rimaril y of c on cern on ly to the sh ip an d the fo rei gnst at e in whi chitis reg is te red .”). The S up rem e Co urt h as refu se d t o d is rupt th is rul e unl es s cl earl y

in st ru ct edby Con gr es s, Be nz , 35 3 U.S. at14 7, 7 7 S .Ct. at 70 4, p art ic ul arl y

wher e, as he re, the leg is la ti ve reco rdbe ars no m en ti on of f or ei gn ap pl ic at io n. Se e WindwardSh ip pi ng (Lon do n) Ltd . v. Am . Rad io Ass ’n, AFLCIO, 4 15 U.S. 10 4, 1 13 , 94 S.Ct . 95 9, 9 64 , 39 L.Ed.2d19 5 (1 97 4) (“ W e are ev en m or e rel uc tantto att rib ut e to Co ng res s an in te nt io n t o d is ruptth is co m pr eh en si ve bo dy of la w by co ns tru ct io n o f anAct u nr el at edto m ari ti m e co m m erce an d di rect edso le ly at Am eri canlab orrel at io ns .”). Thi s ca no n i s ro ot edina ge ne ral co nc ernforin te rn at io na l co mity . Nev erthe le ss , th e St eward s ar gu e th atth is can on sh ou ldbe ap pl ie d o n acas e-b y cas es ba si s an d n otun de r th es e fac ts . They arg ue th at , un li ke inMcC ul lo chwher e Hon du ras ha d ast ro ng in te res t i n app lying it s l aws to Hon du rancit iz en s, the Bah am as ha s n o i nt eres t i n app lying it s l ab orlaws he re b ecau se th e St eward s ar e ci ti zen s o f In di a, no t the Bah am as . A cas e-s pe ci fic in qu iry int o t he effec t o n i nt ern at io na l re la ti on s i s n ot pe rm it te d. Th ou gh th e Mc Cu ll oc h c ou rt h adoc cas io n t o i ll us tra te ho w th e ap pl ic at io n o f th es e st atut es co ul d re ad il y aro us e in te rn at io na l d is co rd , see 37 2 U.S. at 2 1, 8 3 S .Ct. at67 7, the cas e-s pe ci fic fact s o f a p art ic ul ar d is pu te do no t 13 Case: 10-10406 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 13 of 22go ve rnth e an al y si s. Be nz cle arl y il lu st rat es th atth e co nc ernforin te rn at io na l co m it y inth es e cas es is ge ne ral inna tu re an d n otall ay edby a case -b y -cas e, effe ct s- or ie nt edin qu iry. T ho ug h t ha t ca se was abo utth e LMRA, the Ben z co urt reco un te d t he in te rn at io na l ra nc orth atwas a ro us edwhen Co ng res s p ro po se d cert ai n a m en dm en ts to th e Sea m en ’s W ag e Act —a s ta tu te un rel at edto th e 1 1 LMRA
. The Co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t the ex te ns io n o f th e LMRA t o d is pu te s b etween fo rei gnpa rti es ha d t he po te nt ia l t o c reat e anan al og ou s re act io n. Th e Co urt m en ti on edno bre win g i nt ern at io na l b ack la shov er the po te nt ia l ex te ns io n o f th e LMRA i ts el f; i t m erel y

us edth e Sea m an ’s W ag e Actten si on s t o i ll us tra te th e po te nt ia l fo r in te rn at io na l d is co rdwere the Co urt t o app ly gen eral ly-word ed st atut es to who ll y -fo rei gndi sp ut es witho utexpr es s i ns tru ct io n fr om Co ng res s. See B en z, 35 3 U.S. at14 6, 7 7 S .Ct. at70 3- 04 . An actua l o r immin en t in te rn at io na l qua rrel th eref or e is no t n eces sary

to de ny the ap pl ic at io n o f th es e st atut es ; Co ng res s m

us t s pe akcle arl y

reg ard le ss of t he sp eci fic fact s o f a p art ic ul ar cas e. W e wou ldup en d t hi s p rin ci pl e were we t o e nt ert ai n t he Ste ward s’ arg um en t he re. Last ly, th e St eward s co nt en d t ha t § 30 1 o f th e LMRA i s co ex te ns iv e wit h

These a mendments would have extended the Seaman’ s Wage Act to adva nce pa y ments 1 1 g iven to fore ign se aman by fore ign ve ssels. See B enz, 353 U.S. at 146, 77 S.C t. at 703-04.

14 Case: 10-10406 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 14 of 22th e rem ed ie s u nd er the Seam an ’s W ag e Act , whi chex pr es sl y pe rm it s fo rei gn se am ento bri ng su itag ai ns t fo rei gn sh ip s. Th e St eward s b as e th is arg um en t o n U.S. Bul k C arri ers , Inc . v. Arg ue ll es , 40 0 U.S. 3 51 , 35 7, 9 1 S .Ct. 4 09 , 41 3, 2 7 L.Ed.2 d 4 56 (19 71 ), whi chhe ldth at§ 3 01 fun ct io ns as “ anop ti on al rem edy ” to se am eninad di ti on to th os e av ai labl e und er the Seam an ’s W ag e Act . The h ol di ng in Bu lkCarr ie rs was ana rro w on e: th e Co urt h el d t ha t the ex pr es s re m edy inth e Seam an ’s W ag e Actwas n otim pl ic it ly ove rru le d b y

th e ad di ti on of a rb it rat io n pr oc edur es in§ 3 01 of t he LMRA; rathe r, th e LMRA m erel y affo rd edsea m enan ad di ti on al pa th to reco ve ry . Id. at35 7- 58 , 91 S.Ct . at 4 13 . Furt he rm or e, th e pl ai nt iff inBu lkCarr ie rs was a n a li enres id en t o f Bal ti m or e th atwas re pr es en te d by an Am eri can un io n a ndwork edab oa rdanAm eri can sh ip . Argu el le s v . U.S. Bu lkCarr ie rs , Inc ., 40 8 F .2d10 65 , 10 66 , 10 68 (4t h C ir. 1 96 9) . Becau se th e di sp ut e in Bu lkCarr ie rs in vo lv edanAm eri can sh ip an d a n Am eri can un io n, the re is no jus ti fic at io n fo r rea di ng th atcas e as ex te nd in g § 30 1 t o d is pu te s b etween fo rei gnpa rti es . See In t’l Lo ng sh or em en ’s Loca l 4 16 , AFL-CIO v . Ariad ne Sh ip pi ng Co ., 39 7 U.S. 1 95 , 19 9- 20 0, 9 0 S .Ct. 8 72 , 87 4, 2 5 L.Ed .2d21 8 (1 97 0) (h ol di ng th atAm eri can res id en ts hi redby a fore ig n s hi p t o wo rkon anAm eri can

15 Case: 10-10406 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 15 of 22do ckdi d n otin vo lv e th e in te rn al affa irs of afor ei gn sh ip ). 1 2 B. Nex t, we ad dr es s the Dis tri ctCo urt’s d eci si on to di sm is s the Ste ward s’ no nhybri d c la im s u nd er Ru le 12 (b )(1 ). W e rev ie w di sm is sa l fo r la ckof s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on de no vo . Sin al tra in al v. Co ca-C ol a Co ., 57 8 F .3d12 52 , 12 60 (11 th Ci r. 20 09 ). In i ts Ju ly 7, 20 10 , ord er, the Dis tri ctCo urt co ns id eredth e ap pl ic ab il it y

of t he jud ic ia ll y -cre at eddu ty of fai r rep res en ta ti on . Fin di ng no ot he r so ur ce fo r th e duty

of f ai r rep res en ta ti on ot he r th aninth e NLRA an d fi nd in g t he NLRA in ap pl ic ab le to th e St eward s’ cas e, th e Dis tri ctCo urt d is mis se d t he St eward s’ cla im

un de r Ru le 12 (b )(1 ) fo r la ckof s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on . To d et erm in e whe th er a co m pl ai ntst at es a fed eral cau se of a ct io n i s a m eri ts qu es ti on . Morris onv. Nat ’l Aus tra li a Ban k, Lt d., — U.S. —, 13 0 S . Ct. 2 86 9, 28 77 , 17 7 L.Ed .2d53 5 (2 01 0) . “ Subjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on , by co nt ras t, re fers to a tr ib un al ’s po wer t o h ear acas e.” Id . (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Whe re a p la in ti ff’s wel l-p le ad edco m pl ai ntall eg es a cau se of a ct io n aris in g u nd er fe de ral la w, subjec t m atte r juri sd ic ti on ex is ts fora fed eral co urt t o d et erm in e whe th er the The Stewa

rds’ ha ve also pre sented plain mea ning a nd leg islative purpose a

rguments. 1 2 They are fore closed by

Be nz and McCulloch. Be nz, 353 U.S. at 144, 77 S .Ct. at 702-03 (noting the complete a

bsence of leg islative history indicatingthe L MRA’s application to disputes betwee n fore ign pa

rties); McCulloch, 372 U.S. at 19-20, 83 S.Ct. at 676-77 (re jectinga litera l rea ding of

the NLRA’s languag e g iven the extensive leg islative history sug g estingthe Act applies only

to America

n workingmen and their

employers) . 16 Case: 10-10406 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 16 of 22al le ga ti on s en ti tl e h im to rel ie f. Cit y

of C hi cag o v . Int ’l Col l. o f Su rg eo ns , 52 2 U.S. 15 6, 1 63 , 11 8 S .Ct. 5 23 , 52 9, 1 39 L.Ed.2d52 5 (1 99 7) ; s ee Be ll v. Ho od , 32 7 U.S. 67 8, 6 82 , 66 S.Ct . 77 3, 7 76 , 90 L.Ed. 93 9 (1 94 6) (“ Ju ris di ct io n . . . is no t de feat ed. . . by the po ss ib il it y th atth e av erm en ts m ig htfai l t o s ta te a cau se of act io n o n wh ic h p et it io ne rs co ul d a ctua ll y reco ve r.”). Bec au se th e St eward s su ffi ci en tl y

all eg eda br each of the fed eral co m m on law dut y

of f ai r rep res en ta ti on un de r th e NLRA, th e Dis tri ctCo urt h adsubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on to he ar the cas e un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 33 1. Se e Marque z, 52 5 U.S. at49 , 11 9 S .Ct. at30 2 (“ [W] he n a p la in ti ff al le ge s a b reac h o f th e dut y of f ai r rep res en ta ti on , th is cla im is co gn iz ab le in. . . fed eral co urt.”) . Nev erthe le ss , we affi rm

th e d is m is sa l o f th e fai r rep res en ta ti on cla im un de r Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m . See Lu cas v. W.W . Grain ge r, In c., 25 7 1 3 F.3 d 1 24 9, 1 25 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) (“ [W] e m ay affi rm [th e Dis tri ctCo urt’s] jud gm en t o n a ny gro un d tha t fi nd s s up po rt i n t he reco rd .”) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o mit te d) . Though the District Court had jurisdiction to hear the fa ir repr esentation claim, this 1 3 does not revive the Stewar ds’ state lawclaim for br eac h of g ood faith and f air de aling . The District Court indicated that eve n if it if had orig inal jurisdiction it would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Stewa rds’ state la

w claim. We nee d not disturb this dispositi on. See Rane y

v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1089 (11th Cir. 2004) (“ We have encour ag ed district cour

ts to dism iss any

rema ining state claims when . . . the fede ral c laims have been dismissed prior to trial.” ). 17

Case: 10-10406 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 17 of 22The Ste ward s co nt en d t ha t ev enif t he hybri d m ech an is m of § 30 1 o f th e LMRA i s i napp li cab le , th ey canst il l m ai nt ai n ano n- hybri d c la im ag ai ns t FI T un de r § 9 (a) o f th e NLRA. They arg ue th atou r pr eced en t d ic ta te s tha t the NLRA ap pl ie s wh ena fo rei gn un io n e ng ag es inwron gf ul co nduc t thr ou gh it s ag en ts withi n t he Uni te d S ta te s. To supp ort thi s co nt en ti on , th e St eward s l oo k t o o ur de ci si on inDowdv. In t’l Lo ng sh or em en ’s Ass oc ., AFL-CIO, 97 5 F .2d77 9 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 92 ). Dowddo es no t s up po rt thi s ar gu m en t. Do wd co nc ern edth e ap pl ic at io n o f th e NLRA to anAm eri can lab orun io n tha t i nduc eda fo rei gn un io n to pre ss ur e fo rei gn im

po rte rs to est ab li sh a se co nd ary bo y co ttinth e Uni te d S ta te s. Id . at 7 81 . The ap pl ic at io n o f th e NLRA to th e Am eri can un io n i n t ha t ca se —an d th e n ot ic eab le ab se nc e o f NLRA cla im s ag ai ns t the for ei gn un io n— actua ll y supp orts th e arg um en t tha t the NLRA do es no t ap pl y to th e St eward s’ cla im s. In de ed , inDowdwe res ta te d t he Supr em e Co urt’s h ol di ng inMcC ul lo ch . 97 5 F.2 d a t 7 88 (“ [T]he NLRA do es no t re gu la te th e p ract ic es of o wne rs of f or ei gn ve ss el s wh ic h a re t em

po rari ly pres en t i n a n Am eri can po rt wi threg ardto for ei gn em pl oyees wo rk in g o n t he se ve ss el s.”) . The St eward s h av e fai le d t o i de nt ify a so ur ce fo r th e duty

of f ai r rep res en ta ti on ot he r th anth e NLRA. Becau se th e NLRA do es no t ap pl y

when it s ap pl ic at io n wo ul d o nl y co nc ernth e in te rn al affa irs of a fo rei gn ve ss el , th e St eward s ca nn otbri ng a fai r rep res en ta ti on cla im un de r it 18 Case: 10-10406 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 18 of 22he re. III.

W e n ow m ov e to Gom ez. The do ctrin e o f res jud ic at a, orcla im pre cl us io n, ba rs th e p art ie s t o a n a ct io n fr om li ti ga ti ng cla im s tha t wer e o r co ul d h av e b een li ti ga te d i n apri oract io n b etweenth e sa m e p art ie s. J affr ee v . W al la ce, 8 37 F.2d 14 61 , 14 66 (11 th Cir . 19 88 ). The p arty ass ert in g c la im

pre cl us io n a s a d efen se m us t es tabl is h fo urele m en ts : (1 ) th e p rio r de ci si on m us t h av e b een ren de redby a co urt o f co m

pe te ntjuri sd ic ti on ; (2 ) th ere m us t h av e b een a fi na l ju dg m en t o n t he
m eri ts ; (3 ) bo th cas es m

us t i nv ol ve th e sa m e p art ie s o r th ei r pr iv ie s; an d (4 ) bo th cas es m us t i nv ol ve th e sa m e cau se s o f act io n. In re Pi pe r Airc raftCo rp ., 24 4 F .3d 12 89 , 12 96 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). W e rev ie w a cla im pre cl us io n d eci si on de no vo . Id. at12 95 . The qu es ti on be fo re u s i s wh ethe r th e d is m is sa l o f th e LMRA cl ai m inLob o II p recl ud edth e St eward s fr om bri ng in g acla im

un de r th e Sea m an ’s W ag e Actin Gom ez. The pa rti es ag ree t ha t the Dis tri ctCo urt ex erci se d c om pe te ntjuri sd ic ti on an d t ha t the act io ns in vo lv e th e sa m e p art ie s. Th e p art ie s d is pu te whet he r th e Dis tri ctCo urt’s o rd er d is m is si ng th e LMRA cl ai m was afin al jud gm en t o n the
m eri ts an d wh ethe r th e cas es sh are t he same caus e o f act io n.

19 Case: 10-10406 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 19 of 22A.

W e ag ree wi th th e St eward s tha t the Dis tri ctCo urt’s Se pt em be r 10 , 20 09 , or de r di sm is si ng th e LMRA cl ai m s i n Lo bo II was no t a f in al jud gm en t. Alt ho ug h th e St eward s ap pe al edth atord er, we d is m is se d t he ap pe al forlac k o f juri sd ic ti on be cau se th e o rd er was no t fi na l o r imm ed ia te ly app eal ab le . This ord er was no t cl ai m pre cl us iv e. See Fi rs t Al a. Ban k, N.A. v. Pars on s St eel , Inc ., 82 5 F .2d14 75 , 14 80 n.5 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ) (“Non ap pe al ab le in te rlo cu to ry ord ers are n oten ti tl edto co ll at eral est op pe l o r res jud ic at a eff ect .”) Neve rth el es s, we t ak e jud ic ia l n ot ic e 1 4 of th e Dis tri ctCo urt’s en try of jud gm en t o n Jul y 8, 2 01 0, i n Lo bo II. Thi s jud gm en t re nd eredth e Sep te m be r 10 , 20 09 , di sm is sa l fi na l. W e al so co nc lu de th atth e Sep te m be r 10 , 20 09 , ord er was anad jud ic at io n o n th e m eri ts be cau se th e o rd er was a Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) di sm is sa l wi th pre jud ic e. Hall v. TowerLand& In v. Co ., 51 2 F .2d48 1, 4 83 (5t h C ir. 1 97 5) (“ [G]rant in g de fen da nt ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s fo r pl ai nt iff’s fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m up onwhi ch Celebrity corr ectly observe s that the categ ories of a ppeala ble orde rs and or ders e ntitled 1 4 to prec lusive eff

ect do not alwa

y s overlap. Y et the diffe renc es betwe en the two a rise not bec ause some prec lusive order s are non-final, but bec ause some non- prec lusive order s are never theless appea lable. See, e .g ., 18 Moore’ s Fe dera l Practice - Civil § 131.30[ 2][ c][ i] (3d ed. 2010) (“The Supreme Court has c onstrued the ter m ‘final dec ision’ to embrac e some c ollatera l orders the eff ect of which ca nnot be re ctified on a

ppeal f rom final judgment. Fur

thermore , 28 U.S.C. § 1292 provides for

appea ls of cer

tain interlocutory

order s. Even though such matters a re ‘appe alable,’ they

could not be the ba sis for claim pre clusion.” (f ootnotes omitt ed)) . 9 U.S.C. § 16(a) (1) is par

ticularly on point: int erloc utory

order s denying a

motion to compel arbitration ar e g ener ally appealable. 20 Case: 10-10406 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 20 of 22rel ie f can be gra nt edop erat es as a n a dju di cat io n o n t he m eri ts .”); see Cit ib an k,

N.A. v. DataLeas e Fi n. Co rp ., 90 4 F .2d14 98 , 15 01 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ) (“ [D]ism is sa l of a co m pl ai ntwith p reju di ce s at is fie s the requi rem en t tha t the re b e a jud gm en t o n th e m eri ts .”). The S te ward s’ con te nt io n t ha t a ju dg m en t o n t he m eri ts oc cu rs on ly whe n the ren de rin g c ou rt h as ad dr es se d t he subs ta nc e o f ev ery cl ai m to be lat er pr ecl ud edis ba se le ss . The Di stric t Co urt’s jud gm en t o f Ju ly 8, 20 10 , con st itut es a fin al ad jud ic at io n o n the m eri ts as t o C el eb rit y . 1 5 B. Nex t, the pa rti es di sp ut e whe th er the cau se of a ct io n i n Go m ez i s the same as th e o ne inLob o II . A caus e o f act io n i s the same for re s ju di cat a p ur po se s i f it

“ ari se s o utof t he same nu cl eu s o f op erat iv e fac t, o r is ba se d upo n t he same factu al pr ed ic at e, as a fo rm er ac ti on .” Pip er, 2 44 F.3dat 1 29 7. Th e St eward s ar gu e th at th ere i s n o c omm on nu cl eu s o f op erat iv e fac t h ere b ecau se th e LMRA cl ai m in Lob o II aro se ou t o f Cel eb rit y ’s con du ctdu rin g t he arb itrat io n a ndno t o utof the co m pa ny’ s fa il ur e to pa y

wage s. Bu t cl ai m

pre cl us io n “ ap pl ie s n oton ly to the pr eci se leg al th eo ry

pre se nt edinth e p rio r cas e, bu t t o a ll leg al th eo rie s an d c la im s The Stewa

rds also argue that the District Court’s dismissal of the cla im ag ainst 1 5 Celebrity in L obo I Iwas “ purely

a dismissal for lac k of subject matter jurisdiction”—and thus lacks c laim-prec lusive eff ect. In its S eptember

10, 2009 order , the District Court dismiss ed the Stewards’ hy

brid claim ag ainst Celebrity for f ailure to state a

claim, not for lac k of subject matter jurisdiction. The Stewards’ char acte rization of the District Court’s September 10, 2009, or der is meritless. 21

Case: 10-10406 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 21 of 22ari si ng ou t o f th e sa m e nuc le us of o pe rat iv e fac t.” NAACP v . Hun t, 8 91 F.2d

15 55 , 15 61 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). The tes t fo r a co m

m onnu cl eu s o f op erat iv e fac t i s “ whe th er the same facts are i nv ol ve d i n b ot h c as es , so th atth e p res en t cl ai m co ul d h av e b een effe ct iv el y li ti ga te d wi th th e p rio r on e.” Pi pe r, 24 4 F .3dat 1 30 1. A co m pa ris on of t he co m pl ai nt s re ve al s t ha t the fact s i n t he LMRA cl ai m inLob o II an d t he Seam an ’s W ag e Actcla im

inGom ez were all eg edve rb at im . This sat is fie s the same caus e o f act io n re qu ire m en t. IV. W e aff irm th e Dis tri ctCo urt i n Ap pe al No. 1 0- 13 62 3. Be cau se th e St eward s ar e fo rei gn em

pl oyees i nv ol ve d i n an i nt ern al wage di sp ut e wit h a fo rei gnsh ip , nei th er the LMRA n orth e NLRA ap pl y to th e St eward s’ cha ll en ge s. Si nc e th ei r cl ai m s ar e d ep en da ntup on th e p ro te ct io ns of t ho se act s, the Dis tri ct Co urt p ro pe rly dis m is se d t he ir c la im s ag ai ns t Ce le br it y an d F IT inLob o II . W e aff irm th e Dis tri ctCo urt i n Ap pe al No. 1 0- 10 40 6. Be cau se th e St eward s co ul d h av e rai se d t he ir S eam an ’s W ag e Actcla im inLob o II bu t d idno t, we affi rm th e Dis tri ctCo urt’s o rd er i n Go m ez t o d is mis s the cla im as b arre d b y

th e do ctrin e o f res jud ic at a. AFFIR MED 22

Case: 10-10406 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 22 of 22