### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J anu ary 18, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ N o. 03- 1588 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ D. C. Docket N os. 03-2164 2-CV -PA S; 03-2164 3-CV -PA S; 03–21 644-CV-P AS ; 03-216 45-CV- PA S; 03-2164 6-CV -PA S; 03-2164 7-CV -PA S; 03-2164 8-CV -PA S;

03 -2 16 49 -CV-PAS ; 0 3- 21 65 0- CV-PAS; 03 -2 16 51 -CV-PAS RI Z A L YN BAU T IS T A , I ndi vid ua lly and a s Pe rs ona l R ep re se ntativ e of the E state of

Mari –Joh n Bau ti st a, an d a ll cla im in g b y an d t hr ou gh he r, Pl ai nti ff –Appe llant, ve rs us ST AR CRU ISE S, NORW EGIAN CRUISE LINE, LTD ., D ef en dants –Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ PAUL PERALTA, Pl ai nti ff –Appe llant, ve rs us ST AR CRU ISE S, NORW EGIAN CRUISE LINE, LTD ., D ef en dants –Appe lle es .2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ RAYMOND LOVINO, Pl ai nti ff –Appe llant, ve rs us ST AR CRU ISE S, NORW EGIAN CRUISE LINE, LTD ., D ef en dants –Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ RONALDO MARCELINO, Pl ai nti ff –Appe llant, ve rs us ST AR CRU ISE S, NORW EGIAN CRUISE LINE, LTD ., D ef en dants –Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ ROLANDO TE JERO, Pl ai nti ff –Appe llant, ve rs us ST AR CRU ISE S, NORW EGIAN CRUISE LINE, LTD ., D ef en dants –Appe lle es .3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ ABDI COMEDIA, Pl ai nti ff –Appe llant, ve rs us ST AR CRU ISE S, NORW EGIAN CRUISE LINE, LTD ., D ef en dants –Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ CR IS T IN A L . V A L EN Z U E L A , I ndi vid ua lly and as P er sona l R ep re se ntativ e of the E state of

Candi do S. Vale nz ue la , Jr. an d a ll th os e cl ai m in g t hr ou gh he r, Pl ai nti ff –Appe llant, ve rs us ST AR CRU ISE S, NORW EGIAN CRUISE LINE, LTD ., D ef en dants –Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ MA RI L EN S . BE RN A L , I ndi vid ua lly and a s P er sona l Rep res en ta ti ve of t he Est at e o f Ram il G. Bern al , and all those claim ing byand throug h her Pl ai nti ff –Appe llant, ve rs us ST AR CRU ISE S, NORW EGIAN CRUISE LINE, LTD ., D ef en dants –Appe lle es .4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ W IL L Y I . V IL L A

N U E V A , I ndi vid

ua lly and a s P er sona l Rep res en ta ti ve of t he Est at e o f Ren e Vil la nu ev a, a n da l l th o s e c l a i mi n g th r o u g h h i m, Pl ai nti ff –Appe llant, ve rs us ST AR CRU ISE S, NORW EGIAN CRUISE LINE, LTD ., D ef en dants –Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ MA RI A G A RC IAL . RO SA L , I ndi vid ua lly and a s P er sona l Rep res en ta ti ve of t he Est at e o f Ri card o B . Ros al , III, and all those claim ing byand throug h her, Pl ai nti ff –Appe llant, ve rs us ST AR CRU ISE S, NORW EGIAN CRUISE LINE, LTD ., D ef en dants –Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ (J an ua ry18, 200 5)Honora ble J ane A . Restani, Chief J udg e, United States Court of International Trade , * sitti ngby desig nation. The injured c rewmembers a re pla intiff–appellants in this case alongwith personal 1 re pr e se ntativ e s o f t

he de c e de nts . In th e int e re st o f p re c isi on , th is o pin ion re fe rs to plaintiff–appe llants collectively as “Plaintiffs,” a

nd ref ers to the injure d and dec ease d cre wmember s collectively as “c rewmembers” when discussingthose who we re e mploy ed by NCL . 5 Befo re EDMONDSON, Ch ie f Ju dg e, W ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg e, an d R ESTANI , * Judg e. RE ST AN I, Judge: T he S /S N or

w ay ’ s st eam

boi le r explo de d onMay

25, 200 3, w hil e the c ru ise shi p w as in the P ort of

Mi am i. S ix o f the c re w m em be rs r ep re se nte d inthi s a ct ion w er e kil le d and f

our w er e inj ur ed . E ac h c re w m em be r’ s e m plo ym en t a gr ee m en t 1 with D efendant N CL includes an arbitration clause, which the dist rict court en fo rc ed pur suant t o th e U nit ed

N at ion s C onve nti on o n th e Re co gni tio n and E nf or ce m en t of

F or ei gn A rb itr al A w ar ds, ope ne d f or sig na tur e June 10, 195 8, 21 U . S. T . 251 7, 330 U . N . T . S. 3 ( the “ Co nve nti on” ), and i ts i m ple m en tin g le gis la tio n, 9 U . S. C. §§ 2 02–2 08 (2 002) ( the “ Co nve nti on A ct ”) . S ee Ba uti sta v. S tar Cr

uis es , 286 F. S upp. 2d 1 352 (S . D . F la . 200 3) . P la int if fs ’ appe al pr es en ts an is sue of f ir st im pr es sio n inthi s C ir cu it: w he the r the c re w m em be rs ’ e m plo ym en t a gr ee m en ts w er e shi el de d f

ro m arb itr at ionby

the se am ene m

plo ym en t c ontra ct

e xe m pti on co nta ine d inse ct ion1 of

the F ed er al A rb itr at ionA ct , 9 U . S. C. §§ 1 –16 (2 002) ( theThis opinion uses “FAA ” to re fer to the statute containe d in chapter 1 of title 9 and 2 “Convention Act” to refe r to cha pter 2 of title 9. Courts often r efe r to the entire ty of title 9 as the Fe dera l Arbitration Act. See , e.g ., Indus. Risk I nsurer s v. M.A.N. Gutehof fnung shutte GmbH, 141 F.3d 1434, 1440 ( 11th Cir. 1998). As demonstrated in the Par t Iof the discussion below, howeve r, the re lationship between the two statutes is determined by their terms rather than nomenclatur e. 6 “ FA A” ). Bec ause the FA A seam en exem ption does not app ly

and the district 2 c o u rth a dj u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o mp e l ar b i t r a t i o n , w e a f

f i rm. BACKGRO UND I. T HE S UITS A GAI NS T S TAR C RUIS ES AND NCL Fo llo w ing the e xpl osi on a board the N or w ay , P la int if

fs f ile d se parate but ne arl y id en ti cal su it s i n F lo rid a ci rcu itco ur t ag ai ns t Def en da nt–Ap pe ll ee NCL, owner of the Norw ay , and Defe ndant– Appellee S tar Cr uises, alleged by

Plaintiffs to be the parent com

pany of N CL . The c om

plaints s ough t dam ages for negligence an d un se aw orthi ne ss unde r the Jon es A ct , 46 U . S. C. § 68 8, and f or f ai lur e to pr ovi de m ai nte nanc e, c ur e an d un earn ed w ag es und er

the ge ne ra l m ar iti m e lawof th e Uni te d S ta te s. N CL r em ove d th e te n c as es to fe de ra l di str ic t c ourt purs uant t o se ct ion205 of the Co nve nti on A ct , w hic h pe rm its r em ova l be fo re the start of tr ia l whe n th e dis put e re la te s to an arb itr at iona gr ee m en t or arb itr al aw ar d c ove re d by theAfter remova l to feder al district court, the te n case s were consolidated for pretria l 3 purposes on July

14, 2003. Ba

utista, 286 F. Supp. 2d at 1355 n.1.

7 Conventio n. S ee 9 U .S .C. § 205. In the notices of rem oval filed with the district 3 co urt, N CL de sc ri be d ho wthe c re w m em be rs w er e boun d by

e m plo ym en t ag reem en ts th atin cl ud e an arb it rat io n p ro vi si on co ve redby the Co nv en ti on . II. T HE C REWM EMBERS ’ E MPLOYMENT A GRE EM EN TS I NCORP ORATE AN A RBITRA TION P ROVI S ION At the tim e of the explosion , e ach cr ew m em ber’ s em ploym ent was governed by the te rm s of

astandard

e m plo ym en t c ontra ct

e xe cu te d by

the c re w m em

be rs and rep res en ta ti ve s o f NCL in th e Ph il ip pi ne s b et ween Aug us t 2 00 2 a ndMarc h 2 00 3. T he P hil ipp ine gov er

nm en t r eg ulate d th e fo rm and c ont en t of

suc h e m plo ym en t contracts, a s well a s other aspects of the seam en hiring process, through a program ad m in is te redby the Ph il ip pi ne Over se as Em pl oym en t Ad m in is tra ti on (“ POEA”), a div isi on o f the D ep ar

tm en t of L ab or and E m plo ym en t of

the Re publ ic of

the Ph il ip pi ne s (“ DOLE”). E ac h c re w m em

be r sig ne d aone –pa ge standard e m plo ym en t a gr ee m en t cr eate d by

the P O E A , w ithsom e vari at ion s a cc or din g to the pos iti on f or w hic h th e cr ewm em be r w as hir ed . E ac h a gr ee m en t se ts f orth the ba sic te rm s and c ondi tio ns of the c re w m em

be r' s e m plo ym en t, inc lud ing the dur at ionof the c ontra ct , the p o s i t i o n a c c e p t e d , an dth e mo n t h l y s a l a ry a n dh o u r s o f w o rk . A d d i t i o n a l t e rmsThe e mploy ment ag ree ments ref

er e x plicitly

to the Standard Te rms in para g raph 3. 4 Th e fu ll t e xt of

Se c tio n 2 9 o f t

he Sta nd ard Te rm s f oll ow s: 5 In case s of claims and disputes a rising f rom this employ

ment, the par

ties cover ed by a collec tive barg ainingag ree ment shall submit t he cla im or dispute to the orig inal and exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator or pane l of arbitrators. I f the pa

rties ar e not cove red by

a collec tive barg ainingagree ment, the parties may

at their option submit the claim or dispute to either the or igina l and exclusive jurisdiction of the National L abor Relations Com mission (NL RC), pursuant to Republic Ac t (RA) 8042 otherw ise known as the Migrant Worker s and Ove rsea s Filipinos Act of 1995 or to the or igina l and exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary

arbitrator or pane l of arbitrators. I f there is no provision as to the voluntary arbitrators to be appointed by the par ties, the same sha ll be appointed from the a ccr edited voluntary arbitrators of the National Conciliation and Me diatio n B oa

rd of the De pa rtme nt o f L a

bo r a nd Em plo y me nt. Standard Te rms, sec. 29; R.3.60, p. 1. 8 an d c ondi tio ns are inc or

por at ed by r ef er en ce : P ar ag ra

ph 2 pr ovi de s th at

the co nt ract ’s term s an d c on di ti on s s ha ll be ob se rv edin acco rd an ce wi th POEA D ep ar tm en t O rd er

N o. 4 and P O E A Me m or an dum Ci rc ular N o. 9. D ep ar

tm en t O rd er N o. 4, in tur

n, inc or por at es the doc um en t c ont ai nin g th e ar bitratio n c lause : T he S tandard

T er m s and C ondi tio ns G ove rn ing the E m plo ym en t of

F ili pin o Se af ar er s O n B oard

O ce an -G oin g V es se ls ( the “ St an dard T er m s” ). S ec tio n 29 of 4 the S tandard

T er m s r equir es arb itr at ion“ in c as es of c la im s and d isp ute s ari sin g fr om [ the se am an ' s] e m

plo ym en t, ” thr oughsub m iss ionof the c la im s to the National Labor Relations Com m issio n (“

NL RC”) , voluntary

arbitrators, or a panel of arb itr at or s. S tandard

T er m s, se c. 29; R. 3. 60, p. 1. 59

A P O E A of

fi ci al ve ri fi ed

and a ppr ove d th e ex ec uti on o f the e m plo ym en t contract by

the cre wm em

bers and NC L r epresentatives. Although Plaintiffs dis put e that the c re w m em be rs sawthe arb itr at ionpr ovi sio n or ha d it e xpl ai ne d to them , see Pls.’ Mot. f

or Rem and, E xs. 1–8, copies of the Standard T erm s provid ed to the dis tr ic t c ourt by

N CL ind ic at e the c re w m em be rs ini tia le d or

sig ne d th e St an da rdTerm s. See Defs .’ Res p. t o P ls .’ Mo t. fo r Rem an d, Ex s. D– F; R– 3– 60 . NCL also provid ed aff

idavits from

m anagers at var ious m anning agencies licensed by the PO EAto recr

uit seam en. In the aff

idavits, the m anagers attest that (1) they expla ine d th e em

plo ym en t do cum en ts t o th e se am enin the ir na tiv e langua ge ; ( 2) the seam en had an oppo rtunity to reviewthe docum ents; and (3) the seam en we re required to attend a Pr e-D eparture O rientation Sem inar for seam en, which was co nduc te d inboth th e E ngl ishand F ili pin o langua ge s and whic h r ev ie w ed , a m ong other subjects, the Standard T erm s and the disp ute settlem ent procedures provided fo r in the e m

plo ym en t c ontra ct . I d. a t E xs. C–F; R– 3–60 . III . T HE D IS TRICT C OURT C OM PELS A RBITRA TION In an o rd eri s s u ed o n Oc t o b er1 4 , 2 0 0 3 , t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt g ra n t ed NC L’s m oti on t o c om

pe l arb itr at ionand d en ie d P la int if fs ’ m oti on t o r em an d th e ca se to state court. In dispo sing o f the ca se, the district court order ed that the parties subm it to arbitration in th e Philippines p ursuant to Section 29 of the StandardWe cer tified the appe alability

of this action prior to ora l argument. Orde r (11th Cir. 6 Mar. 2, 2004) . 10 Term s an d re ta in edjuri sd ic ti on to en fo rce o r co nf irm an y res ul ti ng arb it ral award . Pl ai nt iff s ap pe al . JURISDIC TION A c as e co ve re d by

the Co nve nti on c onf

er s f ed er al sub

j ec t m atte r j ur isd ic tio n uponadis tr ic t c ourt be ca use suc h ac as e is “ de em ed to ar ise und er

the law s and treaties of the United States.” 9 U. S. C. § 203 . De fendants rem oved these cases from state court pursuant to 9 U.S. C. § 205 , which perm its rem oval of disp utes re la tin g to arb itr at iona gr ee m en ts c ove re d by the Co nve nti on. S ee , e . g. , N oti ce of Re m ova l, R1 –1–3 . P la int if fs c la im that this c as e is n ot c ove re d by the Co nve nti on, and the re by

c ha lle nge the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j ur isd ic tio n. W e dis cu ss thi s c ha lle nge be low . A ssum ing the dis tr ic t c ourt e xe rc ise d j ur isd ic tio n ap pr opr ia te ly , it s or de r is f ina l and a ppe al ab le be ca

use , by c om pe lli ng arb itr at ion of the dis put e, it

“ dis pos[ ed ] of

a ll the iss ue s f

ram ed by the li tig at ionand [ le ft ] nothin g f or the dis tr ic t c ourt t o do but e xe cu te the j udgm en t. ” S ee E m plo y er s I ns. v. Br ight Metal Specialties, Inc. , 251 F. 3d 13 16, 1321 (11t h Cir. 2001 ). 6 STA ND AR

D O F REVIE W W e rev ie w de n ov o t he di st ric t co ur t’s o rd er t o c om pe l arbi tra ti on .These f our re quire that (1) there is an agree ment in writing w ithin the meaningof the 7 Convention; (2) the agree ment provides for arbitration in the territory of a signatory

of the Conve nti on ; ( 3) the a g re e me nt a ri se s o ut o f a

le g a l r e latio ns hip , whe the r c ontr a c tua l or no t, which is consider ed commer cial; and ( 4) a pa rty to the agree ment is not an America n citizen, or that the commer cial re lationship has some rea sonable re lation with one or more f oreign states. Std . B e nt G la ss C or

p. , 3 33 F .3 d at 44 9. I t is be yon d d isp ute that th e se c on d a nd fo ur th conditions are f

ulfilled in this case. The c rewmembers’ arbitration provisions provide for arbitration in the Phi lippines, a signa tory of the Convention. The c rewmembers a re not Americ an citizens, but are c itiz ens of the Philippines. 11 Em pl oyers In s., 2 51 F.3dat 1 32 1. DISC US SION In de ci di ng a m ot io n t o c om pe l arbi tra ti on un de r th e Co nv en ti on Act, a co urt c ondu ct s “ a ve ry

li m ite d in qui ry . ” F ranc isc o v. S tol t A ch ie ve m en t M T , 293 F.3 d 2 70 , 27 3 (5 th Cir . 20 02 ), cert . den ie d, 5 37 U.S. 10 30 , 12 3 S . Ct. 5 61 , 15 4 L. E d. 2d 4 45 ( 2002 ); D iM er curi o v. S phe re D rake I ns. ’ P L C, 202 F . 3d 7 1, 74 ( 1st Ci r. 20 00 ); Led ee v . Ceram ic he Rag no , 68 4 F .2d18 4, 1 86 (1s t Ci r. 19 82 ). A district court m

ust order arbitration unless (1) the four j urisdictio nal prerequisites are not m et, Std. B ent Glass Corp. v. G lassrobots Oy , 333 F. 3d 44 0, 449 (3d Cir. 2003 ); or

( 2) one of

the Co nve nti on’ s a ff

irm at ive de fe nse s a

ppl ie s. D iM er curi o, 7 202 F. 3d at 79 ; se e al so C zari na , L . L . C. v. W . F. P oe S yndi cate , 358 F . 3d 1 286, 1292 n.3 (11th Cir. 2004 ) (“ j urisdictio nal prerequisites to an action confirm ing an awardare d iff

eren t fr om

th e se ve ral affi rm at iv e d efen se s t o c on fir m at io n” ). T w o j ur isd ic tio na l pr er equis ite s are a t i ssu e he re . F ir st, w e m ust de te rm ine12

whe th er t he arb it rat io n a gr eem en t ar is es ou t o f a co m m erci al leg al rel at io ns hi p. Se co nd, w e as k w he the r the re e xis ts an “ ag re em en t i n w ri tin g” to ar bitrate the m atter in dispute. L astly , w e consider Plaintiffs’ purported affirm ative defenses that the arb itr at ionpr ovi sio n is unc onsc ion ab le und er U . S. lawand i nc ap ab le of be ing arb itr at ed

und er the lawof

the P hil ipp ine s. I n ana ly zi ng the se arg um en ts, w e ar e m ind fu l tha t the Co nve nti on A ct “ ge ne ra lly

e sta bli she s astr ong pr es um pti on i n f av or of arb itr at ionof

int er na tio na l c om

m er ci al dis put es . ” I ndus . Ri sk I nsur er s v. M. A . N . G ute hof fnungs hutte G m

bH , 141 F . 3d 1 434, 144 0 ( 11th Ci r. 199 8) ( ci tin g M its ubi shi Mo tor s C or p. v. S ole r Ch ry sle r–Pl ym outh, I nc . , 473 U . S. 614 , 638 –40, 105 S . Ct . 334 6, 335 9–61 , 87 L . E d. 2d 4 44 ( 1985 )) . P la int if fs ’ ar gum en ts f

ai l. I. P LA INTIFFS ’ E MPLOYMENT C ONTRACTS ARE C OMM ERCIAL L EGAL REL AT IONSHIPS U NDER THE C ONVENTI ON A CT , REGARDLES S OF THE FAA S EAMEN E X EMPTI ON We h av e yet t o d et er m i n e w h et h erth e F AA e x emp t i o n fo r s ea m en ’s em plo ym en t c ontra ct s a

ppl ie s to arb itr at iona gr ee m en ts c ove re d by the Co nve nti onTh e se ame n e mpl oy me nt c ontr a c t e xemp tio n a pp e ars in s e c tio n 1 of

the F AA : 8 § 1. “Mar itime transactions” a nd “commer ce” define d; exceptions to operation of tit le [. . .] "c ommerce ", a s here in defined, me ans commer ce a mong the sever al States or with fore ign nations, or in any Terr itory of the United States or

in the District of Columbia, or betwe en any such Ter ritory and anothe r, or be tween a ny such Terr itory and any State or for eig n nation, or betwe en the District of Columbi a and any State or Te rr ito ry or fo re ig n n atio n, but no thi nghe re in c onta ine d s ha ll a pp ly to contrac ts of employ

ment of seamen, ra ilroad employ ees, or any other c lass of worke rs eng ag ed in fore ign or interstate c ommerce . 9 U.S.C. § 1 (emphasis added) . 13 A ct . T he dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d th at it doe s no t. T his c onc lus ionis co nsi ste nt 8 w iththat of

the F if th C ir cu it—

the onl y c ourt of appe al s to de ci de thi s is sue —and se ve ra l di str ic t c ourts. S ee F re ude nspr ung v. O ff

shor e T ec h. S er

vs. , I nc . , 379 F . 3d 327 (5th Cir. 2004 ); Fr ancisco v. Stolt A chievem ent MT, 293 F.3d 270 (5th Cir. 2002 ), cert. denied, 537 U.S . 1030, 123 S. Ct. 561, 154 L. E d. 2d 445 (200 2); Ac osta v. N orwe gian Cruise Line, Ltd. , 303 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (S. D. Fla. 2003 ); Adolfo v. C arnival Corp., No. 02–2 3672 , 2003 U. S. Dist. LE XI S 24143 (S. D. Fla. Mar. 17, 2003); Am on v. Norw egian Cruise L ines, L td., No. 02–2 1025 , 2002 U. S. Dis t. LEXIS 2 70 64 (S.D. Fla . Sep t. 2 6, 2 00 2) . A s w e take up this iss ue of statut or y int er pr et at ion , the f

ir st s te p is to de te rm ine w he the r the statut or y langua ge ha s apla in and una m big uous m eanin g by r ef er ri ng t o “ the langua ge it se lf , the spe ci fi c co nte xt i n w hic h th at langua ge is14

use d, and the br oa de r co nte xt o f the statut e as aw hol e. ” Ro bin son v. S he ll O il Co . , 519 U . S. 337 , 341 , 117 S . Ct . 843 , 846 , 136 L . E d. 2d 8 08 ( 1997 ). T he inquir y c ea se s if the langua ge is cl ear an d “ the statut or y sc he m e is c ohe re nt and co nsi ste nt. ” I d. a t 34 0 ( quot ing U nit ed S ta te s v. Ro n P ai r E nte rp ri se s, I nc . , 489 U . S. 235 , 240 , 109 S . Ct . 102 6, 103 0, 103 L . E d. 2d 2 90 ( 1989 )) . S uc h is the c as e he re . T he statut or

y f ram ew ork of

ti tle 9 and the langua ge and c ont ex t of the Conventio n Act pre clude the application o f the FA A seam en’ s exem ption , e ither dir ec tly a s an in te gr al part

of the Co nve nti on A ct

or r es idu al ly

a s a no n– co nf li ct in g p ro vi si on of t he FAA. A . Th e F A A S ea m en Ex em pt ion D oe s N otA pp ly t o t he C on ve nt ion A ctD ir ec tl y 1. Overview of th e C onvention and the Conven tion A ct The C onvent ion requires that a Contracting State “ shall recognize an ag re em en t i n w ri tin g un de r w hic h th e part ie s un de rt ak e to s ubm it to arb itr at iona ll or any differ ences w hich have arisen . . . betwee n them in respect of a

defined le ga l r el at ion shi p, w he the r co ntr ac tua l or not , c onc er

nin g asub

j ec t m atte r ca

pableTh e fu ll t e xt of Ar tic le I Ipr ov ide s a s f

oll ow s: 9 1. Eac h ContractingState shall rec ognize an agree ment in writing unde r which the pa

rties under

take to submit to arbitration all or any differ ence s which have arisen or

which may

arise be tween the m in respec t of a de fined leg al re lationship, whether c ontrac tual or not, conc erninga subjec t matter capa ble of settlement by

arbitration. 2. The ter

m "a g ree ment in writing" shall include an a rbitral cla use in a c ontr a c t or

an a rb itr atio n a g re e me nt, signe d b y the pa rt ie s o r c onta ine d in an exchang e of le tters or tele g rams. 3. Th e c ourt

of a Contr a c tin gState , whe n s e ize d o f a n a c tio n in

a matte r i n respe ct of whic h the par

ties have ma de an a g ree ment within the meaning of thi s art ic le , s ha ll, at th e re qu e st o f o ne of the pa rt ie s, re fe r t

he pa rt ie s to arbitration, unless it finds t hat the said a g ree ment is null and void, inoperative or inca

pable of beingperf

ormed. Convention, art. I I . Ar tic le I (3 ) o f t

he Conve nti on

pe rm its any

State pa rt y to a pp ly the Conve nti on

“ on ly to 10 the diffe renc es ar ising out of leg al re lationships, whether c ontrac tual or not, which a re c onsidered a s c omm e rc ia l un de r t

he natio na l la

w o f t he State makin gsu c h d e c lara tio n. ” Conve nti on , a

rt . I (3). 15 of settlem ent by

arbitration.” Conventio n, ar t. I I(1). When the United States

9 ac ce d ed t o th e C o n v en t i o n i n 1 9 7 0 , i tex er ci s ed i t s ri g h tt o l i m i tth e C o n v en t i o n ’s application to com

m ercia l legal relationships as defined by the lawof the U nited St at es : T he U nit ed

S ta te s of A m er ic a w ill appl y

the Co nve nti on o nly

to dif fe re nc es ari sin g ou t of

le ga l r el at ion shi ps, w he the r co ntr ac tua l or not , w hic h are c onsi de re d a s c om m er ci al und er

the na tio na l l awof

the Uni te d S ta te s. Co nve nti on, n. 29. P la int if fs a sse rt that the U nit ed

S ta te s natio na l l awde fi nit ion 1016

of “ co m m er ci al ” re sid es in se ct ion1 of the F A A , w hic h de fi ne s “ co m m er ce ” an d pr ovi de s th at

“ nothin g he re in c ont ai ne d sh al l a ppl y to co ntr ac ts o f em

plo ym en t of se am en . ” 9 U . S. C. § 1. A lth oughse ct ion1 c le ar ly e xe m pts se am en ’ s e m

plo ym en t co ntr ac ts f

ro m the F A A , se e Ci rc uit

Ci ty S tor es , I nc . v. A da m s, 532 U . S. 105 , 109 , 121 S. Ct . 130 2, 130 6, 149 L . E d. 2d 2 34 ( 2001 ), the e xe m pti on’ s a ppl ic at ion ou ts id e th e FAA is res tri ct edby the sec on d a ndth ird ch ap te rs of t it le 9.

2. The S tatut ory Fram ew ork of Title 9 of the Un ited S tates Code T he thr ee c ha

pte rs of ti tle 9 are c los el y

int er re la te d, but , c ontrary

to Pl ai nti ff s’ arg um en t, the y

are not ase am le ss whol e. A s in dic at ed , the F A A and the Conventio n Act c om

prise Chapter 1 and Chapter 2, respectively . Chapter 3 co nta ins the le gis la tio n im ple m en tin g th e In te r–

A m er ic anCo nve nti on o n In te rn at ion al Co m

m er ci al A rb itr at ion , Jan. 30, 197 5, 14 I . L . M. 336 ( en te re d in to fo rc e June 16, 197 6) . 9 U . S. C. §§ 3 01–3 07 ( the “ In te r– A m er ic anA ct ”) . W ith in th e g en eral fie ldof a rb it rat io n, ea ch actha s a s pe ci fic co nt ex t an d p ur po se . Co ngr es s, a s it

a dde d th e Co nve nti on A ct and the n th e In te r–

A m er ic anA ct

to tit le 9, an ti ci pa te d c on fli ct s among th es e tr eat y –i m pl em en ti ng st atut es an d t he FAA. Co ngr es s a ddr es se d po te nti al c onf lic ts i n tw o w ay s, e ac h of w hic h li m its the de gr ee t o wh ic h t it le 9 m ay be co ns id ereda si ng le st atut e.17

T he f ir st i s ge ne ra l i n natur e. T he F A A appl ie s r es idu al ly to supp le m en t the pr ovi sio ns o f the Co nve nti on A ct and the I nte r–

A m er ic anA ct . R athe r than pu t the Co nve nti on A ct

and the I nte r–

A m er ic anA ct

on e qua l f

oot ing w iththe F A A in the field of fore ign arbitration, Congress gave the treaty –im plem enting st atutes pr im ac y in the ir f ie lds , w ithF A A pr ovi sio ns a ppl y ing onl y

w he re the y

did not co nf li ct . See 9 U.S.C. § 2 08 (th e Co nv en ti on Act re si du al pro vi si on ); 9 U.S.C. § 307 (the Inter–Am erican Act r esidual provi sion). T his hierarchical structure ac co rd s w ithour

und er standi ng tha t, “ [a ] s an e xe rc ise of the Co ngr es s’ tr eaty p o w e r an da s f e d e r a l l a w , ‘t h e C o n v e n t i o n mu s tb e e n f o r c e da c c o r d i n g t o i t s t e rms ove r al l pr ior

inc onsi ste nt r

ule s of law . ’ ” I ndus . Ri sk I nsur er s, 141 F . 3d at 14 40 (quot ing S ed co , I nc . v. P etro le os M ex ic an os M ex ic anN at ’ l O il Co . , 767 F . 2d 11 40 , 11 45 (5t h C ir. 1 98 5) ). The sec on d t ech ni qu e fo r rec on ci li ng ti tl e 9 ’s chapt ers is m or e sp eci fic . Certa in provis ions o f the Convention Ac t and the Inter–Am erican Act r efer expli ci tly to spe ci fi c se ct ion s of

oth er c ha pte rs of ti tle 9. S ec tio n 30 2 of

the In te r– A m er ic anA ct , f

or e xa m ple , dir ec tly

inc or por at es se ve ra l se ct ion s of the Co nve nti on A ct : “ [s ] ec tio ns 2 02, 203 , 204 , 205 , and 2 07 o f thi s ti tle sha ll ap ply to th is ch ap te r [9 U.S.C. §§ 30 1– 30 7] as i f sp eci fic al ly set f or th he rei n.” 9 U.S.C. § 302. Mo st r el ev an t f

or the ins tant c as e is the r ef er en ce in se ct ion202 of

the18

Co nv en ti on Act t o s ect io n 2 of t he FAA.

3. Sect ion 202 o f th e C onvention A ct In contrast to the Inter–Am erican Act’ s direct incorporation of several Conventio n Act sec tions , sec tion 2 02 do es not incorpo rate sec tion 2 of the FA A a s an exhaustiv e description of the Conventi on Act’ s scope. Rather, section 202 uses se ct ion2 a s an il lus tr at ionof the ty pe s of a gr ee m en ts c ove re d by

the Co nve nti on Act. Inart ic ulatin g th e Co nve nti on’ s c om m er ci al sc ope und er

the law s of

the U nit ed S ta te s, se ct ion202 of

the Co nve nti on A ct

pr ovi de s th at

an a gr ee m en t f

al ls under the Conventi on if it “ aris[es] out of a legal relations hip, whether contractual or not , w hic h is c onsi de re d a s c om m er ci al , inc lud ing a

tr an sa ct ion , c ontra ct , or ag re em en t de sc ri be d inse ct ion2 of thi s ti tle [ 9 U . S. C. § 2] . ” 9 U . S. C. § 20 2Th e fu ll t e xt of § 2 02 is a s f

oll ow s: 11 § 202 Ag ree ment or aw ard f alling unde r the Convention An ar bitration ag ree ment or ar

bitral awa rd ar ising out of a

leg al re lationship, wh et h er co n tra ctu al o r n o t , wh i ch i s co n s i d er edas co m m er ci al , i n cl u d i n g a transac tion, contrac t, or agree ment descr ibed in section 2 of this title [ 9 U.S.C. § 2], falls under the Convention. An agree ment or aw ard a rising out of

such a relationship which is entirely betwee n citizens of the United States shall be de e me d n ot t o f

a ll und e r t

he Conve nti on

un le ss t hat r e latio ns hip inv olv e s p ro pe rt y located a broad, e nvisag es per formanc e or e nforc ement abr oad, or ha s some other rea sonable re lation with one or more f oreign states. For

the purpose of

this section a c or po ratio n is a

c iti zen of the Un ite d St ate s if

it i s in c or

po ra te d o r h a s it s pr inc ipa l pl a c e of

bu sin e ss i n th e Un ite d St ate s. 9 U.S.C. § 202. 19 (em phasis add ed). Sec tion 2 of the FA A m akes valid and enforceable “ [a] 11 w ri tte n pr ovi sio n inany

m ar iti m e tr an sa ct ionor

ac ontra ct

e vid en ci ng a tr an sa ct ioninv olv ing c om m er ce to se ttl e by

arb itr at ion . ” 9 U . S. C. § 2 (e m pha sis ad de d) . T he Co nve nti on A ct ’ s r ef er en ce to se ct ion2 do es not ind ic at e anint en t t o lim it the definition of “ com m ercia l” to those described in section 2 of the FA A a s m odi fi ed by se ct ion1; the e xpansi ve te rm “ inc lud ing ” w oul d be sup er fl uous if the FA A provided the full and com plete definition. “ Including ” dem onstrates that, at the ve ry le as t, Co ngr es s m eant f

or “ co m m er ci al ” le ga l r el at ion shi ps t o c onsi st o f contracts evidencing a com m ercia l transaction, as listed in section 2, as w ell as sim ilar agre em ents. Se e Fe deral L and Bank v. Bism arck L um ber Co. , 314 U. S.Pla int if fs e mph a size that th e he a din gto S e c tio n 1 of the F AAre a ds “ e xce pti on s to 12 title.” A sec tion headingmay be helpf ul in construing a

statute’s mea

ning, but “ it may

not be u s e d a s a m e an s o f c r e at i n ganamb i gu i ty

w h e nth e b o dy

o f th e a c ti t s e l f

i s c l e ar . ” 2 AN o r

m anJ. Singer , Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47:07 (6th ed. 2000). The Convention Act is clear . 20 95, 100 , 62 S . Ct . 1, 4, 86 L . E d. 65 ( 1941 ) (“ the te rm ‘ inc lud ing ’ is not

one of al l–e m br ac ing de fi nit ion , but

c onno te s si m

ply an il lus tr at ive appl ic at ionof the ge ne ra l pr inc ipl e. ”) ; A rg osy L td. v. H en nig an , 404 F . 2d 1 4, 20 ( 5thCi r. 196 8) (“ The word‘ in cl ud es ’ is us ua ll y a te rm of e nl arg em en t, an d n ot of l im it at io n . . . . It the re fo re c onve y s th e co nc lus ionthat the re are oth er it em s in cl uda

ble , tho ugh no t s pe ci fic al ly enu m erat edby the st atut es .”). W e the re fo re und er stand the r ef er en ce to se ct ion2 of

the F A A to be ge ne ral ly ill us tra ti ve of t he co m m erci al leg al rel at io ns hi ps co ve redby sect io n 2 02 . The illustration rendered by section 2 includ es em

ploym ent agreem ents and m akes no m ention o f the section 1 seam en exem ption . Cf. Circuit City

Stores, 532 U.S . at 113, 121 S. C t. at 1308 (construing section 2 and rej ecting the propo sition that ane m plo ym en t c ontra ct

is not a“ co ntr ac t e vid en ci ng a tr an sa ct ioninv olv ing int er state c om

m er ce ”) . A cc or din gly , the te rm s of the Co nve nti on A ct

do n ot pr ovi de that w e re ad

se ct ion1 i nto se ct ion202 . 12 Pl ai nti ff s c ite c om

m itt ee te sti m ony

in the le gis la tiv e his tor

y in the hop e of de m onstratin g th at

Co ngr es s in te nde d se ct ion202 of the Co nve nti on A ct

to21

incorporate the FA A seam en exem ption . Am

bassador Richard K earney , C hairm an of th e Sec ret ary of

Sta te ’s Adv is ory

Co m m it te e o n P riv at e In te rn at io na l Law, te sti fi ed be fo re the S en at e Fo re ignRe la tio ns C om m itt ee that the definition of com

m erce contained in section 1 of the original A rb itr at ionA ct

is the na tio na l l awde fi nit ionf or the pur pose s of the de cl ar at ion . Aspe ci fi c re fe re nc e, how ev er , is m ad e in s ec tio n 20 2 to section 2 of title 9; which is the basic prov ision of the original Arb it rat io n Act . S. Co m m . on F or ei gn R el at ion s, F or ei gn A rb itr al A w ar ds, S . Re p. N o. 91- 702, a t 6 (1 970) . A lth oughit

is pla usi ble to inf

er f ro m A m ba ssa dor K earn ey ’ s c om

m en ts that he be lie ve d th e se ct ion1 e xe m pti ons shou ld a

ppl y to the Co nve nti on A ct , his vie w s a s asin gle S ta te D ep ar tm en t of fi ci al are ar el at ive ly

unr el ia ble ind ic at or

of statut or y int en t. S ee Ci rc uit

Ci ty S tor es , 532 U . S. a t 12 0, 121 S . Ct . a t 13 11 (“ Le gislativ e history

is problem atic even w hen the attem pt is to d rawinference s fr om the int en t of

dul y appoi nte d c om

m itt ee s of the Co ngr es s. ”) ; F ranc isc o, 239 F. 3 dat2 7 6 (q u o t i n g Ci rc u i tCi t y St o re s t o d i s co u n tAm b as s ad o r K ea rn ey’s te sti m ony ). P la int if

fs ne ve rthe le ss c la im

that, a cc or din g to U da ll v. T al lm an , 380 U . S. 1, 16, 85 S . Ct . 792 , 801 , 13 L . E d. 2d 6 16 ( 1965 ), his vie w s are e nti tle d to

“ great defe rence. ” Pls. ’ Op. Br. at 27. U dall, howe ver, accor ds such d efer ence onl y to “ the of

fi ce rs or a ge nc y c harg ed w ith[ the statut e’ s] a dm ini str at ion , ” 380 U . S. a t 16 , 85 S . Ct . a t 80 1, and the re is no i ndi catio n th at the S ta te D ep ar

tm en t i s22

so c harg ed . E ve n if

the above te sti m ony

w er e ow ed

som e de fe re nc e, it

c oul d no t al te r the pla in t er

m s of the Co nve nti on A ct . S ee Barnhart v. S igm on C oa l C o. , 534 U . S. 438 , 457 , 122 S . Ct . 941 , 954 , 151 L . E d. 2d 9 08 ( 2002 ) (“ Fl oor state m en ts from two Se nators cannot am end the clear and un am bigu ous lang uage of a statut e. ”) . R athe r than di re ct ly inc or por at e anF A Apr ovi sio n th at Co ngr es s di d not , w e adhe re to the f

ram ew ork C ongr es s pr ovi de d and e va luate the appl ic ab ili ty of an unm entioned FAAsection according to the Conv ention Act’ s residual ap pl ic at io n p ro vi si on . B. Th e F A A S ea m en Ex em pt ion D oe s N otA pp ly R es id ua lly As noted above, section 208 of the Conv ention Act provides that non– co nf lic tin g pr ovi sio ns o f the A rb itr at ionA ct appl y r es idu al ly

to Co nve nti on A ct c as es : Ch ap te r 1 [ 9 U . S. C. §§ 1 e t se q. ] appl ie s to a ct ion s and p ro ce ed ing s brough t under this chapter [9 U. S. C. §§ 20 1 et seq.] to the extent that ch ap te r is n ot i n c onf

lic t w iththi s c ha

pte r [9 U . S. C. §§ 2 01 e t se q. ] or the Co nve nti on a s r at if

ie d by the U nit ed

S ta te s. 9 U. S. C. § 208 (em

phasis add ed); cf. 9 U. S. C. § 307 (providing for r esidual ap pli catio n of

the F A A to the I nte r–

A m er ic anA ct ). U nde r thi s r es idu al pr ovi sio n, the issue is whether the FA A seam en exem ption conflicts with the Convention Ac t orth e Co nv en ti on as r at ifi edby the Uni te d S ta te s.23

A c onf lic t e xis ts b etw ee n th e FA A se am ene xe m pti on, w hic h is narr owand spe ci fi c, and the langua ge of the Co nve nti on and the Co nve nti on A ct , w hic h is br oa d and g en er ic . P la int if fs , und er the im pr es sio n th at

an F A A te rm

m ay onl y be co ntr ad ic te d by

nam e, arg ue that no c onf lic t e xis ts b ec au se se ct ion202 of the Co nve nti on A ct

is sil en t a s to se am en ’ s e m plo ym en t c ontra ct s. A cc or din g to thi s log ic , astatut or

y pr ovi sio n pe rt ai nin g to pe rs ons ab ove the a ge of e igh te enw oul d not c onf lic t w ithapr ovi sio n th at

e xe m pts thi rty y ear- old s. B ec au se the Co nve nti on A ct

c ove rs c om

m er ci al le ga l r el at ion shi ps w ith out e xc ep tio n, it co nf lic ts w ithse ct ion1, an F A A pr ovi sio n th at e xe m pts c er ta in e m plo ym en t agreem ents that—bu t for the exem ption—would be com

m ercia l legal re la tio nshi ps. T he F if

th C ir cu it cam e to the sam e co nc lus ionin Fr an ci sc o: Insho rt , the langua ge of

the Co nve nti on, the r at if y ing langua ge , and the Conventio n Act im

plem enting th e Convention do not rec ogni ze an exception for seam en em ploym ent contracts. On the contrar y , they re co gni ze that the onl y

li m itatio n onthe ty

pe of le ga l r el at ion shi p falling und er the C onvent ion is th at it m ust be consi dered “ co m m er ci al , ” an d w e co nc lud e that an e m plo ym en t c ontra ct

is “ com m ercia l.” 293 F. 3d at 27 4. W e se e no r ea son to d ive rg e fr om the se nsi ble r ea soni ng o f our si st er Ci rcu it . In de ed , to re ad

ind ustry –spe ci fi c ex ce pti ons int o th e br oa d langua ge of the Conventio n Act w ouldbe to hind er the C onvent ion’s purpose:24

T he goa l of

the Co nve nti on, and the pr inc ipa l purp ose und er ly ing A m er ic ana dopt ionand i m ple m en ta tio n of

it , w as to en co ur ag e the re co gni tio n and e nf

or ce m en t of

c om m er ci al arb itr at iona gr ee m en ts i n international cont racts and to unify the standards by

which agreem ents to arbitrate ar e observed and arbitral aw ards are enforce d in th e si gn at ory

co un tri es . Sc he rk v. A lbe rt o- Cu lve r Co . , 417 U . S. 506 , 520 n. 15, 94 S . Ct . 244 9, 245 7 n. 15, 41 L . E d. 2d 2 70 ( 1974 ) (e m pha sis a dde d) ; se e al so I ndus . Ri sk I nsur er s, 141 F . 3d at 144 0 ( ide nti fy ing a ddi tio na l purp ose s of the Co nve nti on, suc h a s r el ie vin g congestio n in the courts and p rovidin g an expedient alternative to litig ation). I n pursuin g effe ctive, unified ar bitration st andards, the Convention’s fr am ers unde rs too d th at

the be ne fi ts o f the tr eaty w oul d be und er

m ine d if dom es tic c ourts w er e to i nj ec t the ir

“paro ch ia l” va lue s in to the r eg im e: Inthe ir dis cu ssi on o f [Art ic le I I( 1) ] , the de le ga te s to the Co nve nti on voiced frequent concern that courts of signatory countries in which an ag re em en t t o arb itr at e is s ough t t o be e nf or ce d sh oul d no t be pe rm itt ed to de cl ine e nf

or ce m en t of

suc h a gr ee m en ts o n th e ba sis of paro ch ia l vi ew s of

the ir de sir ab ili ty

or in a m an ne r that w oul d di m in is h t he m

ut ua ll y bi nd in g n atur e o f th e ag reem en ts . Sc he rk , 417 U . S. a t 52 0 n. 15, 94 S . Ct . a t 24 57 n . 15. T his c onc er n is a ddr es se d by the br oa d langua ge of

se ct ion202 of

the Co nve nti on A ct . C onsi de ri ng the langua ge of

the Co nve nti on A ct

in the c ont ex t of

the f ram ew ork of

ti tle 9 and the pur pose s of the Co nve nti on, w e fi nd n o j ust if ic at ionf or r em ovi ng f

ro m the Co nve nti on A ct ’ s sc ope asub se t of c om m er ci al e m

plo ym en t a gr ee m en ts. T he25

cr ewm em be rs ’ arb itr at ionpr ovi sio ns c onst itu te c om m er ci al le ga l r el at ion shi ps wit hi n t he m ean in g o f th e Co nv en ti on Act. II. P LA INTIFFS ’ E MPLOYMENT A GRE EM EN TS W ERE A GRE EM EN TS IN W RITI NG , W HIC H V ES TED THE J URIS DICTI ON OF THE D IS TRICT C OURT Fi ndi ng n o e rr or

in the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de te rm inatio n th at ins tant arb itr at ion pr ovi sio ns are c om

m er ci al le ga l r el at ion shi ps, w e tur n to the oth er

r el ev an t j urisdictio nal prerequisite, i. e. , that the party seeking arbitration provi de “ an ag re em en t i n w ri tin g” in w hic h th e part ie s un de rt ak e to s ubm it the dis put e to arb it rat io n. Co nv en ti on , art . II(1 ); s ee al so Czar in a, 35 8 F .3dat 1 29 1. A gr ee m en ts i n w ri tin g in cl ude “ anarb itr al c lause in a co ntr ac t or an arb itr at ion ag re em en t, sig ne d by

the part ie s or

c ont ai ne d inan e xc hange of le tte rs or te le gr am s.” C on ve nt io n, ar t. II( 2) . N CL sup pli ed

the dis tr ic t c ourt w ithc opi es of the e m plo ym en t a gr ee m en t an d t he Sta nd ardTerm s s ig ne d b y each crewm em

be r. See Def

s.’ Res p. t o P ls .’ Mot. for Rem and, E xs. D –F; R–3–60 . Although Plaintiffs claim the cre wm em

bers did no t have an opportu nity to reviewthe entirety

of the Standard T erm s before signi ng, Plaintiffs do not disp ute the veracity of the signatures. S ee P ls.’ Op. Br. at 36 n . 1. A cc or din gly , thi s do cum en ta tio n f ulf ill s th e j ur isd ic tio na l pr er equis ite th atth e co ur t b e p ro vi de d wi th an ag reem en t t o a rb it rat e si gn edby the pa rti es .26

Pl ai nti ff s tr y in va in t o id en tif

y thr ee r ea sons w hy

the sig ne d do cum en ts f

ai l t o co ns ti tu te ag reem en ts in writ in g. Fi rs t, P la int if

fs im pugnthe inc or

por at ionof

the S tandard

T er m s in to the em plo ym en t a gr ee m en t, c iti ng d ec isi ons of oth er Ci rc uit s th at

int er pr et A rt ic le II( 2) to require inclusion o f an ar bitration prov ision in a signed agreem ent or an ex ch an ge of

le tte rs or te le gr am s. S ee S td. Be nt G la ss, 333 F . 3d at 44 9; K ah n Luca s Lancaster, Inc. v. L ark Int’ l Ltd. , 186 F. 3d 21 0, 218 (2d Cir. 1999 ); cf. U nit ed S ta te s F ide lity

& G uar. Co . v. W es t P oin t C onstr. Co . , 837 F . 2d 1 507, 150 8 (1 1thCi r. 198 8) ( fi ndi ng tha t, und er the F A A , the inc or

por at ionof

an arb itr at ion pr ovi sio n e xpr es se d an in te nt o f the part ie s to arb itr at e) . T his arg um en t f ai ls t o ad dr es s th e fa ct

that the c re w m em

be rs sig ne d th e St an dard

T er m s, the doc um en t co nt ai ni ng th e arb it rat io n p ro vi si on . Se co nd, P la int if

fs a sse rt that, in or de r to s at isf

y the a gr ee m en t–i n–wri tin g re qui re m en t, N CL be ar s an “ ev ide nti ar y bur de n” of

e sta bli shi ng tha t the cr ewm em be rs kno w ing ly

a gr ee d to arb itr at e dis put es ari sin g f ro m the e m plo ym en t re la tio nshi p. S ee P ls. ’ O p. Br . a t 42 . T he part ie s di sa gr ee a s to w he the r the cr ewm em be rs w er e spe ci fi ca lly

not if ie d of the arb itr at ionpr ovi sio n, and e ac h si de su pp or ts it s p os it io n wi th affi da vi ts . See Pl s.’ Mot . forRem an d, Ex s. 1 –8 ; Def s.’ Re sp. to Pl s. ’ Mo t. f

or Re m an d, E xs. C–F; R– 3–60 . P la int if fs a lso e m

pha siz e the27

ge ne ra l so lic itu de f

or se am enr ef

le ct ed in the Jon es A ct

and G ar re tt v. Moo re –Mc Co rm ac k C o. , 317 U . S. 239 , 243 –50, 63 S . Ct . 246 , 249 –50, 87 L . E d. 239 (1 942) . P la int if

fs , how ev er , of

fe r no a uth or ity ind ic at ing that the Co nve nti on or the Co nve nti on A ct

im pose upo n th e part

y se ek ing arb itr at ionthe bur de n of dem onstrating notice or knowledgeable consent. T o require such an evidentiary show ing in ev er

y c as e w oul d be to m ak e anunf ound ed inf er en ce f ro m the te rm s of the Conventio n and would be squ arely at odds with a court’ s lim ited jurisdictional inquir y , an in qui ry

c olo re d by

astr ong pr ef

er en ce f or arb itr at ion . S ee F ranc isc o, 293 F.3d at 273. It is no better to sty le Plaintiffs’ defec tive noti ce cla im as an affir m ative defense, as virtually every case w ouldbe susceptible to a dis pute over whether the party

resisting arbitration was aw are of the arbitration provisio n when the party sig ne d th e ag re em en t. I n th e lim ite d j ur isd ic tio na l i nqui ry pr es cr ibe d by the Conventio n Act, we find it especially appropriate to abide by

the general pr inc ipl e that “ [o ] ne w ho h as e xe cu te d aw ri tte n c ontra ct and i s ig nor an t of

it s co nte nts c an not

se t up that i gnor an ce to av oid the obl igatio n a

bse nt f ra ud and m isr ep re se ntatio n. ” V ulc anP ai nte rs v. MC I Co nstru ct or s, 41 F . 3d 1 457, 146 1 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 5) . T hir d, P la int if

fs ’ arg ue that the a gr ee m en t–i n–wri tin g pr er equis ite r em ai ns unf ulf ill ed be ca use N CL did

not a tta chthe sig ne d c opi es of the S tandard

T er m s to28

it s n ot ic es of r em ov al to th e d is tri ctco urt. NCL was un de r no su ch ob li ga ti on . T he a gr ee m en t–i n–wri tin g pr er equis ite doe s no t sp ec if y w he n aparty

se ek ing ar bitratio n m

ust pr ovi de the c ourt w iththe a gr ee m en t i n w ri tin g. T he Co nve nti on Ac t’ s rem oval provis ion states th at “ [t] he procedure for rem oval of causes otherwise provided by

lawshall apply , e xcept that the groun d for re m oval pr ovi de d inthi s se ct ionne ed not appe ar on the f ac e of the c om pla int but m ay be shown in the petiti on for rem oval.” 9 U .S .C. § 205. Sec tion 2 05 do es not require a dis tr ic t c ourt t o r ev ie wthe put at ive arb itr at iona gr ee m en t— or inv es tig at e the va lid ity of the sig na tur es the re on— be fo re a ssum ing j ur isd ic tio n: “ T he langua ge of § 20 5 stro ngl y

sug ge sts that C ongr es s in te nde d th at dis tr ic t c ourts c ont inu e to be able to assess their j urisdictio n from the pleadings alone.” Beiser v. W ey ler, 284 F.3d 665 , 671 (5th Cir. 2002 ); cf. 28 U. S. C. § 144 6 (requiring only“ a short and plain statem ent of the grounds for r em oval”). NC L’ s notices of rem oval m et pr oc ed ur al r equir em en ts b y

ide nti fy ing the r el ev an t do cum en ts and d es cr ibi ng howthe y bin d th e Pl ai nti ff

s to arb itr at ion . S ee , e . g. , R1 –1–3 ; se e al so W hol e H ea lthCh ir opr ac tic & W el lne ss, I nc . v. H um an a Me dic al P lan, I nc . , 254 F . 3d 1317 , 132 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) ( “ T he lawdis favor s c ourt m ed dli ng w ithr em ova ls ba se d upo n p ro cedur al —as di st in gu is he d fr om juri sd ic ti on al —d efec ts ”).29

III . P LA INTIFFS ’ A F F IRMATIVE D EFEN SES F AIL T he Co nve nti on r equir es that c ourts e nf or ce an a gr ee m en t t o arb itr at e unl es s the agreem ent is “ null andvoid, inop erative or inca pable of being perform ed.” Co nve nti on, art . I I( 3) . P la int if fs do n ot art ic ulate the ir

de fe nse s inthe se te rm s, cl ai m ing ins te ad

that the arb itr at ionpr ovi sio n is unc onsc ion ab le and the underly ing di spute is n ot arbitrable. For purposes of analy sis, w e sty le the form er as a“ nul l and v oid ” cl ai m and the latte r as an “ inc ap ab le of be ing pe rf

orm ed ” cl ai m . A . Th e A rb it ra ti on P ro vis ion Is N otN ul l an d V oid

“ [T ] he Conventio n’ s ‘ null andvoid’ c lause . . . lim its the bases upo n which an international arbitration agreem ent m ay be challenged to standard br ea ch –of –c ontra ct de fe nse s. ” D iM er curi o v. S phe re D rake I ns. P L C, 202 F . 3d 71, 79 ( 1st

Ci r. 200 0) . T he li m ite d sc ope of the Co nve nti on’ s nu ll an d vo id c lause

“ m ust be interpreted to encom pass onl y those situ ations—s uch as fra ud, m istake, duress, and w aiver—that can be a pplied n eutrally

on an internation al scale. ” Id. at 80 . Pl ai nti ff

s do not c la im f ra ud, m ist ak e, dur es s or

w ai ve r. I nst ea d, P la int if fs , al le ge that the c re w m em

be rs w er e put

in a dif fi cu lt “ take it

or le av e it” sit

ua tio n when presented w ith the term s of em ploym ent. S ee P l’ s Op. Br. at 43. P laintiffs30

ar gue that st at e– lawpr inc ipl es of unc onsc ion ab ili ty

r en de r the r es ult ing a g r e e me n t s u n c o n s c i o n ab l e . T h e y s up p o rtth i s p o s i t i o nb y c i t i n g th e S up r e me Co urt’ s op ini on i n F ir st O pti ons of Ch ic ag o, I nc . v. K ap lan, 514 U . S. 938 , 944 , 115 S. Ct . 192 0, 192 4, 131 L . E d. 2d 9 85 ( 1995 ) (“ co urts g en er al ly . . . sho uld ap ply or din ar y state –lawpr inc ipl es that go ve rnthe f orm at ionof

c ontra ct s” ). I n K ap lan, how ev er , the Co urt a ppl ie d th e FA A , not

the Co nve nti on. S ee id. , 514 U . S. a t 94 1, 115 S . Ct . a t 19 22. D om es tic de fe nse s to arb itr at ionare tr an sf er ra ble to a Conventio n Act c ase only if they fit w ithin the lim ited scope of defenses de sc ri be d a

bove . S uc h an a

ppr oa chis re qui re d by

the uni que c ir cum stanc es of fo re ignarb itr at ion : co nc er ns o f int er

natio na l c om ity , r es pe ct

f or the c ap ac iti es of

f or ei gn an d tr an snatio na l tri buna ls, and s en sit ivi ty to the ne ed

of the int er na tio na l c om

m er ci al sy ste m

f or pr ed ic ta bil ity in the r es olu tio n of dispu tes require that w e enforc e the parties’ agree m ent, e ven as sum ing that a

c ontrary r es ult w oul d be f

orthc om ing in a dom es tic co nte xt. Mi tsu bis hi M oto rs Co rp . v. S ole r Ch ry sle r–Pl ym outh, I nc . , 473 U . S. 614 , 629 , 105 S. Ct. 3346 , 3355, 87 L. Ed. 2d 444 (1985) Whil e it is p lausi ble that e co nom ic hard shi p m igh t m ak e a pr ospe ct ive Filipino seam an susceptibl e to a har d bargain during the hiring process, Plaintiffs ha ve not e xpl ai ne d ho wthi s m ak es f or ade fe nse und er

the Co nve nti on. I t i sThis is not t o say that the cr ewmembe rs wer e at the c omplete merc y of NCL . As noted 13 a bo ve , th e g ov e rnme nt o f t he Phi lip pin e s, thr ou g h th e POE A, re gulate d th e hir ingpr oc e ss w ith the stated purpose of protec ting the inter ests of seamen. B eca use we decide this case on other g rounds, we do not r eac h Def endants’ a

rgument that the involvement of the POEA in the hir ing proce ss impli cate s the Act of State doc trine or c oncer ns of international comity . See De fs.’ B r. at 11–13. 31 doub tf ul tha t the re e xis ts a

pr ec ise , uni ve rs al de fi nit ionof the une qua l barg ai nin g power def

ense that m ay

be applied effe ctively

acr oss th e range of countries that ar e part ie s to the Co nve nti on, and a bse nt any ind ic at ionto the c ontrary , w e de cl ine to form ulate one. 13 B. The A rbitr ation Pr ovisi on is Not In capable of B eing P erform ed P l a i n t i f f s ar g u e th a t , u n d e r

th e l a wo f

th e P h i l i p p i n e s , th e s e a me n ' s c l a i ms ar e not c onsi de re d “ cl ai m s ari sin g f ro m thi s e m plo ym en t” pur suant t o S ec tio n 29 of th e St an da rdTerm s an d t he refo re ar e n ot su bjec t t o a rb it rat io n i n t ha t co un try. T o su ppor t this c la im , P la int if

fs r el y on T olo sav. N . L . R. C. ( 2003 ) G . R. N o. 1495 78 ( Ph il. ). T olo sainv olv ed ac la im a ga ins t a de ce as ed se am an ’ s e m

plo y er f or the gr oss ly

ne gli ge nt a ct s of

his shi pm at es w he n th e he f el l i ll. I d. a t 6. B ec au se the com plaint focused prim arily

on the tortiou s conduct o f the shipm ates rather t h a n ac l a i m “ar i s i n g f

r o m e mp l o ye r - e mp l o ye e r e l a t i o n s , ” th e P h i l i p p i n e S up r e me Court held that neith er the labor arbiter nor the national labor relations bod y had juri sd ic ti on . Id. H er e, asim ilar re sul t i s no t f or eo rd ai ne d. P la int if

fs have opt ion s be y ond32

tort claim s; they

com plain that NCL failed in one of its central duties as an em plo y er and s hip owne r, i. e. , to pr ovi de ase aw orthy ve sse l. A cc or din gly , the hol din g inT olo sais anins uf fi ci en t ba sis f

ro m w hic h to c onc lud e that this dis put e can no t b e arb it rat edin th e Ph il ip pi ne s. CON CLU SION The di st ric t co ur t p ro pe rly gran te d NCL’s m ot io n t o c om pe l arbi tra ti on . The plain language of the Convention Ac t, 9 U .S .C. §§ 201 –208 , pre cludes ap pli catio n of

the e xe m pti on f or se am en ’ s e m

plo ym en t a gr ee m en ts s et

f orth i n 9 U . S. C. § 1, and the re are no i m pe dim en ts t o th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j ur isd ic tio n to co m pe l arb itr at ion . F urthe rm or e, the a gr ee m en t t o arb itr at e is n ot null and v oid or in cap ab le of b ei ng pe rfo rm ed . AFFIR MED.