FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 9, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H]

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 15 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cv -2 20 46 -J AL

ST. HUGH W ILLIAMS, Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs us NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD., d.b .a. NCL, Defen da nt- App el la nt .

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

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jul y 9, 2 01 2) Befo re TJ OFLAT, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Thi s ap pe al co nc ern s o urau th or it y to rev ie w an o rd er re m an di ng anact io n ba se d o n a n ant eced en t an d e rro ne ou s ru li ng th atanag reem en t t o a rb it rat e was un en fo rceabl e. St. Hu gh W il li am s fi le d i n aFlo rid a co urt a c om pl ai ntth at , whi le worki ng onbo ardth e M/ V Norweg ia n S ky, he was in jure d a s a r es ul t o f th e ne gl ig en ce an d o th er t orti ou s co nduc t o f th e o wne r of th e sh ip , NCL (Bah am as ) Ltd . See 4 6 U.S.C. § 30 10 4. NCL rem ov edth e act io n t o the di st ric t co urt o n t he gr ou ndth atW il li am s was co nt ractua ll y bo un d t o a rb it rat e h is co m pl ai ntun de r th e Uni te d Nat io ns Co nv en ti on on Reco gn it io n a ndEnfo rcem en t o f Fo rei gn Arbi tra l Award s, 9 U.S.C. § 2 05 , bu t Will ia m s m ov edto rem an d t he act io n t o s ta te co urt. The di st ric t co urt ru le d t ha t the arb it rat io n c laus e was un en fo rceabl e, se e Tho m as v. Ca rn iv al Co rp ., 57 3 F .3d11 13 (11 thCir . 20 09 ), an d t he n t he di st ric t co urt gr an te d Wil li am s’s m ot io n t o re m an d. NCL ap pe al ed , andth is Co urt l at er h el d, i n Lin do v. NCL (Ba ha m as ) Ltd ., 65 2 F .3d12 57 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ), th atanag reem en t to arb it rat e und er the Co nv en ti on is en fo rceabl e. W il li am s ar gu es th atth is Co urt la ck s ju ris di ct io n, 2 8 U.S.C. § 14 47 (d ), bu t we h av e juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e de ni al of t he m ot io n t o c om pe l u nd er Ci ty of W aco v. U.S. Fi de li ty & Guara nt y Co ., 29 3 U.S. 1 40 , 55 S. Ct. 6 (19 34 ). W e rev ers e th e o rd er d en y in g the m ot io n t o co m pe l o f NCL, va cat e th e o rd er re m an di ng W il li am s’s co m pl ai ntto st at e co urt, an d re m an d wi th in stru ct io ns to co m pe l arbi tra ti on . 2W e m ay rev ie w th e d en ia l o f th e m ot io n o f NCL to co m pe l arbi tra ti on un de r anex cep ti on to sec ti on14 47 (d ). In Waco , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t an ap pe ll at e co urt m ay

rev ie w a de ci si on of t he di st ric t co urt tha t “ in lo gi c an d i n fa ct . . . prece de d t ha t o f rem an d” an d t ha t, “ if n otrev ers edor s etasi de , is co nc lu si ve up on ” th e ap pe ll an t. 2 93 U.S. at 1 43 , 55 S. Ct. at7. Waco “ al lo ws [a n app el la te co urt] to rev ie w di st ric t co urt o rd ers th atlea d t o, b utare s ep arat e fro m , ord ers of rem an d andha ve a co nc lu si ve effe ctup on th e en su in g s ta te co urt ac ti on .” Aqu am ar, S.A. v. Del Mo nt e Fre sh Pro du ce N.A., Inc ., 17 9 F .3d12 79 , 12 86 (11 th Ci r. 19 99 ). The ru li ng th atth e arb it rat io n c laus e was un en fo rceabl e was sep arat e fro m an d l edto th e o rd er o f rem an d. Th e d is tri ctco urt re so lv edth e m eri ts of t he m ot io n t o c om

pe l an d t he n ru le d t ha t i t l ack edjuri sd ic ti onto ad jud ic at e th e di sp ut e b etweenW il li am s an d NCL. The rul in g a ls o “ ch an ge s t he co nt ou rs of t he st at e co urt ac ti on aft er re m an d.” Id. Un de r Fl or id a la w, col la te ral est op pe l ap pl ie s whe n the id en ti cal is su e h as be en“ fu ll y li ti ga te d” be twee n t he id en ti cal pa rti es an d “ de te rm in edina co nt es t tha t re su lt [ed ] ina fi na l d eci si onof aco urt o f co m pe te ntjuri sd ic ti on .” Cit y of Ol ds m ar v . Sta te , 79 0 S o. 2 d 1 04 2, 1 04 6 n .4 (F la . 20 01 ). On remandto a Fl or id a co urt, NCL wo ul d b e b arre d fr om co m pe ll in g W il li am s t o arb it rat e h is co m pl ai nt . The di stric t co urt erredwhen itde ni edth e m ot io n o f NCL to co m pe l 3W il li am s t o arb it rat e h is co m pl ai nt . The d is tri ctco urt b as edit s ru li ng on our de ci si on inTho m as v. Ca rn iv al , 57 3 F .3dat 1 12 2– 24 , wher e we ref us edto en fo rce anag reem en t t o a rb it rat e und er the Uni te d Nat io ns Co nv en ti on on th e g ro un d t ha t itwas “ nu ll an d v oi d a s a m at te r of publ ic po li cy ” b ecau se th e co m pl ai na ntco ul d no t as se rt s ta tu to ry

cla im s fo r rel ie f. W e h av e si nc e ru le d i n Li nd o t ha t Th om as is in co ns is te ntwith o urpri orpre ced en t i n B au ti st a v . Sta r Cru is es , 39 6 F .3d12 89 , 13 02 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). “ To the ex te ntTho m as was app lying Arti cl e II” of the Co nv en ti on , Tho m as “ fai le d t o fo ll ow o urpre ced en t i n . . . Bau ti st a” b y reco gn iz in g p ub li c p ol ic y as a n a dd it io na l d efen se to en fo rcem en t o f anarb it rat io n ag reem en t. Lin do , 65 2 F .3dat 1 27 7– 78 . Our p rece de ntdi ct at es th ata co urt m us t en fo rce a n a gr eem en t t o a rb it rat e u nd er the Co nv en ti onun le ss th atag reem en t i s

“ nu ll an d v oi d” as b ei ng “ ob ta in edth ro ug h t ho se li m it edsi tu at io ns , su ch as ‘frau d, m is ta ke , du res s, an d wai ve r,’ co ns ti tu ti ng ‘ st an da rdbre ach -o f-co nt ractde fen se s’ th at‘ can be ap pl ie d n eu tra ll y on anin te rn at io na l s cal e.’” Id. at12 76 (qu ot in g Bau ti st a, 39 6 F .3dat 1 30 2) . W il li am s d idno t as se rt a ny of th es e g ro un ds in res po ns e to th e m ot io n t o c om pe l, an d NCL was en ti tl edto co m pe l Will ia m s t o arb it rat e. W e REVERSE th e o rd er d en y in g the m ot io n t o c om pe l o f NCL, VACATE th e o rd er re m an di ng th is act io n t o s ta te co urt, an d REMAND with i ns tru ct io ns to 4co m

pe l Will ia m s t o a rb it rat e h is di sp ut e wit h NCL.

5