FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T APRI L 10, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 86 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 1 :1 1- cv -2 19 66 -PCH ROY DAVID CASTILLO ARAUZ,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us
CARNIVAL CORPOR ATION, d.b .a. Carn iv al Cru is e Lin es , Inc ., FUTURA CRUISES, INC ., Defen da nt s- App el le es
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 10 , 20 12 )
Befo re MAR CUS, MARTIN, an d C OX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.
PER CURI AM:
Pla int if f Ro y D av id Cast il lo Arau z ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r co m pe ll in g
arb it rat io n of hi s cl ai m s ag ai ns t hi s em pl oyer, Carn iv al Co rp or at io n. Our pr eced en tin Li nd o v. NCL (Bah ama s) , Lt d. , 65 2 F.3 d 12 57 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 11 ), fo recl os es Arau z’s

arg um en t. The refo re, we aff irm.
BACKGROUND
Arau z, a Pan am an ia n se am an , su ffer ed an in jury whi le wor ki ng ab oa rd th e
Carn iv al sh ip Des ti ny . His e m pl oym en t con tra ct cal le d for all di sp ut es “ ari si ng ou t
of or in co nn ect io n wit h” th at co nt ract to be arb it rat ed in Pan am a Ci ty, Pan am a un de r
Bah am ia n l aw. Des pi te th is pr ov is io n, Ara uz su ed Carn iv al in a Fl or id a st at e co ur t
al le gi ng : (1 ) ne gl ig en ce un de r th e Jo ne s Act; (2 ) un se awo rth in es s; (3 ) fai lu re to tre at

an d in ad eq ua te m ed ic al care ; an d (4 ) fai lu re to pr ov id e en ti re m ai nt en an ce an d cu re.
Carn iv al ti m el y rem ov ed to th e di st ric t c ou rt fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of Fl or id a.
Carn iv al th en m ov ed to co m pe l ar bi tra ti on
. 1

Arau z co un te red th at th e arb it rat io n pr ov is io n was un e n f o rcea bl e un de r
Th oma s v. Ca rn iv al Co rp

. , 57 3 F.3 d 11 13 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ). The arb it rat io n 2

The Convention on the Recog nition and Enforc ement of For eig n Ar b i t ral Awar ds (the 1 “Convention”), as incorpora ted in the United States’ Code, 9 U.S.C. § 201, require s the courts of member states to enfor ce cer tain arbitra tion ag ree m en t s. Convention, art. I I (3), J uly 10, 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517. The United States is a party to the Convention, and it is undisputed that the arbitra tion ag ree ment at issue fa lls withi n its scope.
Under the Convention, a court does not ha ve to or der arbitra tion if the ag ree ment is “ null 2 and void.” Convention, ar t. I I (3). The “null and void” c lause limits the possibl e cha lleng es at the arbitra tion-enfor ceme nt stag e of the litigation to standard brea ch-of -contra ct defe nses—“suc h as fra ud, mistake, duress, and waiver —that can be applied n eu trally on an international scale .” Bautista v. Star Cruises , 396 F.3d 1289, 1302 (11th Cir. 2005); see Lindo v. NCL ( Bahamas) , Ltd. , 652 F.3d 1257, 1278 ( 11th Cir. 2011). Article V o f the Convention permits member states to ref use to rec og nize an arbitra tion
2ag reem en t in Th oma s req ui red th e ap pl ic at io n of fo rei gn la w in a fo rei gn fo ru m
. W e

he ld th a t t hi s ag reem en t act ed as a pr os pe ct iv e waiv er of th e pl ai nt iff ’s st at ut or y rig ht s u nd er Unit ed St at es ’ la w. Id

. at 11 23

. W e fu rth er h el d t ha t t he pu bl ic po li cy
of t h e Uni te d St at es m ad e su ch pr os pe ct iv e waiv ers “ nu ll an d vo id ” un de r th e
Co nv en ti on
. Id

. at 1 12 4.

In res po ns e to Arau z ’s mo t io n to rem an d, Carn iv al fil ed a st ip ul at io n, whi ch

pr ov id ed :
Carn iv al wil l w a iv e it s co nt ract ua l rig ht to th e ap pl ic at io n of fo rei gn la w to Pl ai nt iff ’s cl ai m s in arb it rat io n. Fu rth er, Carn iv al de fers to Pl ai nt iff ’s Jo ne s Act cla im an d a gr ees to th e ap pl ic at io n of U.S. la w to Pla in ti ff’s J on es Act cl ai m
. (R.1 -4 at 1.) Arau z reject ed th e st ip ul at io n an d arg ue d th at Carn iv al co u ld no t

un il at eral ly m od ify th e arb it rat io n pr ov is io n in hi s em pl oym en t co nt ract

. The di st ric t

co ur t di sa gr eed

. It fo un d th at Carn iv al ’s un il at eral st ip ul at io n el im in at ed th e pu bl ic

po li cy co nc ern s i de nt ifi ed in Th oma s . It en te red an ord er co m pe ll in g a rb it rat io n. 3

awa rd if it violates that country ’s public policy

. Convention, art. V(2)( b). But this defe nse applies only to the awa

rd-e nforc ement stag e of the litigation, not the arbitration-enfor ceme nt stag e. See Lindo , 652 F.3d at 1263. Stil l, in Thomas , we read Article I I and V toge ther and cr ea t ed a p u b l ic policy defe nse for the arbitra tion-enfor ceme nt stag e. See Lindo , 652 F.3d at 1274; see also Thomas , 573 F.3d a t 1124 n.17.
Be cause we decide this case on other g rounds, we do not addre ss whether the district court 3 proper ly acc epted Carnival’s stipulation. We mere ly note that the district court’s order acc epted the stipulation as binding and that neither Carnival nor Ara uz have challeng ed that decision on appea l.
3Afte r th e co ur t en te red th at or de r, we de ci de d Li nd o v. NCL (Bah ama s) , Lt d. ,

65 2 F.3 d 12 57 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 11 ). W e no te d ou r ho ld in g in Bau ti st a v. St ar Cr ui se s , 39 6 F.3 d 12 89 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ), th at on ly st an da rd br each -o f-co nt ract
de fen se s— “ su ch as frau d, m is ta ke , du res s, an d waiv er— th at can be ap pl ie d ne ut ral ly

on an in te rn at io na l scal e” ca n i nv al id at e an arb it rat io n agr eem en t at the arb it rat io nen fo rcem en t s ta ge
. Li nd o , 65 2 F .3d at 12 78

. W e sa id th at Th oma s cl earl y vi ol at ed

Bau ti st a ’s ho ld in g a nd th eref or e o ur pri or pa ne l p rece de nt rul e. Id

. 4

DISCUSS ION

“ W e rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r to co m pe l arb it rat io n.” Bau ti st a , 39 6 F.3 d at 12 94 (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Ara u z r a i s e s two is su es on ap pe al

. Fi rs t, he

co nt en ds th at a pu bl ic po li cy de fen se ex is ts at the ar bi tra ti on -en fo rcem en t st ag e un de r
th e Co nv en ti on
. Seco nd , Arau z co nt en ds th at un co ns ci on ab il it y is a st an da rd br each

of -co nt ract de fen se un de r th e Co nv en ti on
. Arau z ack no wled ge s th at Li nd o fo recl os es hi s pu bl ic po li cy arg um en t. He al so
ack no wled ge s th at we can no t ov erru le Li nd o
. Uni te d St at es v. Smi th , 12 2 F.3 d 13 55 , 13 59 (“ Und er th e p r i o r p a ne l pr eced en t ru le , we are bo un d by earl ie r pa ne l
ho ld in gs
. . . un le ss an d un ti l th ey are ov erru le d en ba nc or by th e Su pr em e Co ur t.”)

.

Another panel has followed Lindo in an unpublished opinion. See Henriquez v. NCL 4 ( Bahamas) , Ltd. , 440 F. App’ x 714 (11th Cir. 2011).
4In hi s in it ia l br ie f, Arau z an ti ci pa te d th at th e Li nd o pa ne l wou ld va cat e it s op in io n

be cau se th at cas e se tt le d ou t of co ur t befo re the m an da te is su ed

. Bu t Li nd o was no t

va cat ed an d re m ai ns bi nd in g p rece de nt in th is cir cu it

. Arau z al so arg u e s t ha t un co ns ci on ab il it y is a st an da rd br each -o f-co nt ract
de fen se un de r th e Co nv en tion. B aut ista co ns id ered bu t reject ed th is arg um en t, sa y in g

“ [i]t is do ub tfu l t h a t t h ere ex is ts a pr eci se , un iv ers al de fin it io n of th e [u nc on sc io na bi li ty] de fen se th a t may be ap pl ie d effe ct iv el y acro ss th e ran ge of

co un tri es th at are pa rti es to th e Co nv en ti on
. . . .” Bau ti st a , 39 6 F.3 d at 13 02

. Arau z

co nt en ds th at Bau ti st a pe rm it s reco gn it io n of un co ns ci on ab il it y as a st an da rd br each

o f

- c o n t ract de fen se if it “ can be ap pl ie d ne ut ral ly on an in te rn at io na l sc al e.” I d

. (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Bu t Arau z di d no t rai se th is is su e be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t.
Rat he r he rai se d it in hi s in it ia l br ie f o n ap pe al

. Gen eral ly, we wil l no t co ns id er
is su es rai se d fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al

. W e ha ve reco gn iz ed fiv e ex cep ti on s to th is

ge ne ral ru le

. Se e, e.g

. , Dea n W it te r Reyn ol ds , In c. v. Fern an de z , 74 1 F.2 d 35 5, 5

“We have permit t ed issues to be raised for the first time on appea l under five 5 circ umstances[.] First, an appellate court will consider an issue not r aised in the district court if it involves a pure question of law, and if ref usal to consider it would result in a miscarr iag e of justice. Second, the rule may be rela x ed wher e the appellant raises an objection to an order which he had no opportunity to raise at the district court level. Third, the rule do es n o t b ar consideration by the appellate court i n the first instance wher e the interest of substantial justice is at stake. Four th, a fede ral appellate court is justified in resolvi n g an i s s u e n ot passed on below .

. . wher e the proper resolution is bey ond any doubt. Finally , it may be appropr iate to consider an issue first raised on appea l if that issue prese nts signific ant questions of g ener al impa ct o r o f g rea t public conce rn.” Acc ess Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co. , 385 F.3d 1324, 1332 (11th Cir. 2004) (ultimately
536 0– 61 (1 1t h C i r
. 19 84 ). Thi s cas e do es no t fal l wit hi n on e of th es e ex cep ti on s.

Thu s, we d ecl in e to co ns id er h is un co ns ci on ab il it y arg um en t.
CONCLUSION

Li nd o req ui res us to affi rm th e o rd er co m

pe ll in g a rb it rat io n.
AFFIR MED.

quoting Dean W

itter Rey nolds, Inc. , 741 F.3d at 360–61) (interna l quotations and citations omitted) (empha sis omit ted).

6