Source: https://www.lipcon.com/work-in-progress/plaintiff-v-ncl-bahamas-ltd/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:35:18+00:00

Document:
HomeWork in ProgressPlaintiff v. NCL Bahamas Ltd.
Plaintiff v. NCL Bahamas Ltd.
Our experienced maritime attorneys are prepared to fight for our clients through all stages of litigation. Thanks to the size of our firm and our in house appelate counsel, we often represent clients in Courts of appeal, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In this case, our firm appealed the decision to force one of our clients to arbitrate his claims outside of Court. The ability to appeal these decisions not only helps our clients win their cases, but also allows us to create positive law for all seafarers and future clients.
The undersigned counsel of record for Petitioner, in compliance with Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 and 11th Cir. R. 26.1-1, certifies that the following listed persons, parties, and corporations have an interest in the outcome of this appeal.
Appellant respectfully requests oral argument. I express a belief, based upon a reasoned and studied professional judgment, that this Honorable Court should hear the case sitting en banc. The outcome of this case will resolve conflicts between three Eleventh Circuit panel opinions: Paladino v. Avnet Computer Technologies, Inc., 134 F. 3d 1054 (11th Cir. 1998); Thomas v. Carnival Corp., 573 F. 3d 1113, 1117 (11th Cir. 2009); and Lindo v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., 2011 WL 3795234 (11th Cir. 2011). Moreover, the panel decision in Lindo conflicts U.S Supreme Court precedent in Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985), Hellenic Lines Ltd. v. Rhoditis, 398 U.S. 306 (1970). Therefore, consideration by the full court is necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of decisions of this court.
Whether Congress intended to permit U.S. based cruise line employers to contractually exempt themselves as Jones Act employers?
Whether seafarers, long time wards of the admiralty courts, and a favored class by Congress, should be subject to arbitration clauses which effectively deny them all of the rights and remedies afforded to them under U.S. law?
The district court had federal question jurisdiction over Appellant’s complaint based on 9 U.S.C. § 205, as an action or proceeding relating to an arbitration agreement falling under the Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards (“Convention”).
This Court has jurisdiction to review the district court’s order that compelled arbitration and denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand. See City of Waco v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 283 U.S. 140 (1934); Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336 (1976); see also Snapper, Inc. v. Redan, 171 F. 3d 1249, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 1999); see generally Beiser v. Weyler, 284 F. 3d 665, 672-75 (5th Cir. 2002).
1.Whether the district court erred in granting NCL’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand?
2. Whether NCL’s arbitration clause, requiring the application of Bahamian law at arbitration, deprives Appellant of his congressional U.S. statutory rights under the Jones Act, and his legal rights pursuant to the doctrine of “maintenance and cure” ?
3.Whether Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985), Paladino v. Avnet Computer Technologies, Inc., 134 F. 3d 1054 (11th Cir. 1998) and Thomas v. Carnival Corp., 573 F. 3d 1113, 1117 (11th Cir. 2009); required the district court to declare NCL’s arbitral provision unenforceable?
4.Whether Appellant will have a subsequent opportunity to review the arbitrator’s decision in a U.S. district court, particularly because there is no provision under the Convention for a vacatur action?
This matter involves a labor dispute between Appellant, Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”/ “Plaintiff”/ “Appellant”) and NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., (hereinafter “NCL”), the owner operator of the vessels Pearl and Sky. [R.E. Tab 2, ¶5]. On or about September, 2010, Plaintiff was employed by NCL as a seaman and a member of the vessel’s crew. [Id., ¶ 7]. On or about the above referenced date, NCL required Plaintiff to move a unreasonably heavy garbage bin in the garbage storage area. As a result, Plaintiff sustained severe injuries, including damage to his left shoulder. [Id., ¶ 9].
As a result of his injuries, and exercising his United States statutory rights, Plaintiff filed suit in Florida State Court against NCL. In the suit, Plaintiff alleged claims against NCL for “Jones Act negligence,” “unseaworthiness,” “failure to provide maintenance and cure”, and “failure to treat.” [R.E. Tab. 2]. On June 15, 2011 NCL removed the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1441, et seq. [R.E. Tab 3(a)]. Subsequently, on June 22, 2011, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. [R.E. Tab 3(b)].
The subject arbitration provision contains a choice of law clause which provides, in part at paragraph 12 that the “substantive law to be applied to the arbitration shall be the law of the flag of the vessel.” [D.E. Tab 3(a), Document 1-3, pg. 2]. The flag state of the vessel on which the Plaintiff was assigned at the time the cause of action accrued was a Bahamian vessel.
Additionally, the subject arbitration provision contains a foreign venue clause which provides that arbitration must take place in the Bahamas or Nicaragua. [R.E. Tab (3)(a), Document 1-3, pg. 2].
Pursuant to the terms of NCL’s arbitral provision, therefore, if Plaintiff were compelled to arbitrate this matter, Plaintiff would be forced to arbitrate his claims exclusively under Bahamian law – in Nicaragua or the Bahamas. Because all of the Plaintiff’s causes of action are U.S. based law remedies (which Bahamian law does not recognize), compelling the case to arbitration would completely deprive Plaintiff of his causes of action under U.S. law.
On July 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Remand. [R.E. Tab 4].

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 205
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.