[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-15525

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-23032-UU

JOSE ALVARO DOLMO MONTERO,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

CARNIVAL CORPORATION,

d.b.a. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.,

 Defendant-Appellee. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(July 12, 2013)

Before CARNES, WILSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Jose Montero, a Honduran citizen and former crewmember aboard Carnival 

Corporation’s vessel, the Inspiration, appeals the district court’s order granting 

Case: 12-15525 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 1 of 9 
2

Carnival’s motion to compel arbitration of his claims pursuant to the Convention 

on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 9 U.S.C. § 201 et 

seq. Montero contends that the arbitration provision in his employment contract 

does not apply to his claims.

I.

Montero gradually developed back pain while working as a fire patrolman 

aboard the Inspiration. On March 18, 2010, he visited the ship’s doctor who 

concluded that he was no longer able to perform the duties of his job. Carnival 

then sent Montero to shore for further medical treatment, first in Mexico, then 

Miami, then Honduras, and finally Panama. In Panama, Montero was told that he 

needed major back surgery, which was performed on January 27, 2011. Montero 

contends that the surgery he received in Panama was medically unnecessary and 

did him more harm than good.

Montero filed suit against Carnival in Florida state court, asserting claims of 

Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure under maritime 

law. Carnival removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to compel 

arbitration based on the arbitration provision contained in the “Seafarer’s 

Agreement,” which is essentially the employment contract between Montero and 

Carnival. The district court granted the motion and ordered that the case be closed 

for administrative purposes. This is Montero’s appeal.

Case: 12-15525 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 2 of 9 
3

II.

As an initial matter, Carnival contends that we lack jurisdiction because the 

district court’s order compelling arbitration was a non-appealable interlocutory 

order, instead of an appealable final decision, because it did not dismiss Montero’s 

claims. A “final decision with respect to an arbitration” is immediately appealable, 

9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(3), but an “interlocutory order . . . compelling arbitration” is not, 

id. § 16(b)(3). 1

 A district court order directing that arbitration proceed and 

dismissing a plaintiff’s claims, with or without prejudice, is “a final decision with 

respect to an arbitration” that is immediately appealable. Green Tree Financial 

Corp. – Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 86–87, 121 S.Ct. 513, 519–20 (2000) 

(dismissal with prejudice); Hill v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 398 F.3d 1286, 1288 (11th 

Cir. 2005) (dismissal without prejudice). By contrast, an order that compels 

arbitration but stays the proceedings is an interlocutory order that is not 

immediately appealable. Am. Express Fin. Advisors, Inc. v. Makarewicz, 122 F.3d 

936, 939 (11th Cir. 1997). 

 1 Chapter 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act, which includes 9 U.S.C. § 16, does not 

directly apply to this case. See 9 U.S.C. § 1 (“[N]othing herein contained shall apply to contracts 

of employment of seamen . . . .”). However, the Convention on the Recognition and 

Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, which applies notwithstanding the fact that this case 

involves a contract of employment of a seaman, Bautista v. Star Cruises, 396 F.3d 1289, 1300 

(11th Cir. 2005), incorporates the provisions of Chapter 1 that do not conflict with it, 9 U.S.C. § 

208. Because 9 U.S.C. § 16 does not conflict with the Convention on the Recognition and 

Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, it applies to this case and we evaluate the jurisdictional 

issue under its framework.

Case: 12-15525 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 3 of 9 
4

In this case, the district court’s order that compelled arbitration did not 

specifically state that Montero’s claims were dismissed. It did state, however, 

“that for administrative purposes this case is hereby CLOSED.” Notably, the 

district court’s order did not stay the proceedings, nor did it contemplate any 

further action on this case. It effectively “end[ed] the litigation on the merits and 

[left] nothing more for the [district] court to do but execute the judgment.” Green 

Tree, 531 U.S. at 86–87, 121 S.Ct. at 519. Accordingly, the district court’s order 

was a “final decision with respect to an arbitration” and we have appellate 

jurisdiction. 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(3); Green Tree, 531 U.S. at 86–87, 121 S.Ct. at 519.

III.

Montero contends that the district court should not have compelled 

arbitration because the seafarer’s agreement, which contains the arbitration clause,

had terminated before this dispute arose. We review de novo a district court’s 

order compelling arbitration. Doe v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., 657 F.3d 1204, 

1213 (11th Cir. 2011).

The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral 

Awards, 9 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., applies if four jurisdictional prerequisites are 

satisfied: “(1) there is an agreement in writing . . .; (2) the agreement provides for 

arbitration in the territory of a signatory of the Convention; (3) the agreement 

arises out of a legal relationship, whether contractual or not, which is considered 

Case: 12-15525 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 4 of 9 
5

commercial; and (4) a party to the agreement is not an American citizen, or . . . the 

commercial relationship has some reasonable relation with one or more foreign 

states.” Doe, 657 F.3d at 1294 n.7. When the Convention applies, “a court 

conducts a very limited inquiry” when deciding a motion to compel arbitration. Id.

at 1294 (quotation marks omitted). “A district court must order arbitration unless 

(1) the four jurisdictional prerequisites are not met or (2) one of the Convention’s 

affirmative defenses applies.” Id. at 1294–95 (citation omitted). Affirmative 

defenses that apply in this context include where the agreement to arbitrate is “null 

and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.” Bautista v. Star Cruises, 

396 F.3d 1289, 1301 (11th Cir. 2005). 

Although Montero does not phrase his arguments in terms of the 

Convention’s jurisdictional prerequisites or affirmative defenses, we take his 

argument to be that one or more of the affirmative defenses applies because the 

arbitration clause ceased to be effective when the agreement terminated and 

because this dispute falls outside the arbitration clause’s scope. See id. (analyzing 

the plaintiff’s arguments under the Convention’s affirmative defenses even though 

the plaintiffs did not “articulate their defenses in [those] terms”).

Even though this dispute involves the Convention, which favors arbitration, 

the parties’ intent controls. See id. at 1295 (“[T]he Convention Act ‘generally 

establishes a strong presumption in favor of arbitration of international commercial 

Case: 12-15525 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 5 of 9 
6

disputes.’”). That is, we do not “twist the language of the contract to achieve a 

result which is favored by federal policy but contrary to the intent of the parties.” 

Doe, 657 F.3d at 1214 (quoting Goldberg v. Bear, Stearns & Co., 912 F.2d 1418, 

1419–20 (11th Cir. 1990)). To determine the parties’ intent, we start with the 

language of the agreement. See id. The termination provision of the seafarer’s 

agreement between Montero and Carnival states in relevant part: 

This Agreement shall automatically terminate without notice 

immediately upon Seafarer’s unscheduled disembarkation of the 

assigned vessel if Seafarer disembarks the vessel for any reason, 

including but not limited to unscheduled personal leave, illness or 

injury, for more than one full voyage. This Agreement shall also 

terminate without notice immediately upon Seafarer being unfit or 

unable to serve in his or her stated position at the commencement of a 

new voyage.

Under that language, the agreement terminated when Montero, before he was 

scheduled to do so, disembarked from the cruise ship to seek treatment for his back 

injury which was preventing him from doing his job.

The arbitration clause in the seafarer’s agreement does not expressly state 

whether it survives the termination of that agreement, but the unambiguous 

language clearly contemplates that it does. It broadly provides that “any and all 

disputes,” other than certain wage disputes, “shall be referred to and finally 

resolved by arbitration,” and it expressly includes disputes regarding the 

agreement’s termination. Clearly the parties contemplated some circumstances in 

which the arbitration clause would survive termination of the agreement. And that 

Case: 12-15525 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 6 of 9 
7

makes sense because if it did not, there would be little room for the clause’s 

operation. Montero would have us conclude that arbitration is not required if an 

employee brings a claim after the employment contract terminates. But that 

interpretation would allow an employee to avoid arbitration entirely by either 

disembarking from the ship ahead of schedule or waiting until his 10-month 

contract expires before he brings a claim. Such an interpretation would contradict 

the arbitration clause’s broad language, as well as the Convention’s policy in favor 

of arbitration. Accordingly, we conclude that the arbitration clause did not cease to 

be effective when Montero disembarked the vessel ahead of schedule.2

Montero contends that even if the arbitration clause survives the termination 

of the agreement, his claims fall outside its scope because they arise under the 

Jones Act, not the seafarer’s agreement. As initial matter, we note that the 

arbitration clause, by its terms, is not limited to “disputes arising out of or in 

connection with [the seafarer’s] agreement.” It also requires arbitration of “any 

and all disputes arising out of . . . Seafarer’s service on the vessel.” Montero 

maintains that this language is not broad enough to encompass his suit, which he 

alleges arose out “the shoreside doctor’s negligence.”

 2 Montero also contends that Carnival is equitably estopped from enforcing the arbitration 

clause because Carnival treated the seafarer’s agreement as terminated when it stopped paying 

his wages. That argument is without merit. Carnival’s assertion that the arbitration clause 

survives termination of the seafarer’s agreement is not inconsistent with treating the seafarer’s 

agreement as terminated. See Sea Byte, Inc. v. Hudson Marine Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 565 F.3d 

1293, 1304 (11th Cir. 2009) (equitable estoppel applies only when a party adopts a position that 

is “contrary to” an earlier asserted position).

Case: 12-15525 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 7 of 9 
8

We reject that argument. Montero’s complaint raised four claims, two of 

which alleged Jones Act negligence, one of which alleged unseaworthiness, and 

one of which asserted a cause of action for maintenance and cure. But for 

Montero’s service on the vessel, none of those claims would have been viable. See

Doe, 657 F.3d at 1220–21 (holding that claims arising under the Jones Act and

allegations of “unseaworthiness” and “maintenance and cure” “are dependent on 

[the plaintiff’s] status as a seaman employed by the cruise line and the rights that 

she derives from that employment status”); see also O’Boyle v. United States, 993 

F.2d 211, 213 (11th Cir. 1993) (“[I]n order to recover damages under the Jones 

Act, [a plaintiff] must have the status of a seaman.”); Hurst v. Pilings & Structures, 

Inc., 896 F.2d 504, 505 (11th Cir. 1990) (“The Jones Act permits a seaman injured 

in the course of employment to bring an action against his employer for 

damages.”); Offshore Co. v. Robison, 266 F.2d 769, 781 (5th Cir. 1959) (“The 

admiralty doctrine of absolute liability for unseaworthiness is based on protection 

of seamen who sign articles for a voyage and are then under the absolute control of 

a master with power to order seamen to do the ship’s work in any weather, under 

any conditions, using such equipment as may be furnished by the shipowner.”); 

Flores v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 47 F.3d 1120, 1122–23 (11th Cir. 1995) 

(“Maintenance and cure is a remedy with roots in the medieval sea codes; it is a 

remedy designed to protect seamen from the perils of living and working at sea.”). 

Case: 12-15525 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 8 of 9 
9

Because none of Montero’s claims would be viable if he had not served as an 

employee on one of Carnival’s cruise ships, this dispute arises out of his service on 

the vessel and falls within the scope of the arbitration clause.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-15525 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 9 of 9