Case Name: Arcadin RODRIGUES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-11
Citations: 414 F. App'x 247
Docket Number: No. 10-12684
Parties: Arcadin RODRIGUES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKETT, MARCUS and COX, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 414
Pages: 247–248

Head Matter:
Arcadin RODRIGUES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-12684
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Feb. 11, 2011.
Susan S. Lerner, Russo Appellate Firm, P.A., Tonya Jean Meister, Meister Law LLC, Michael Frederick Guilford, Miami, FL, Elizabeth Koebel Russo, Russo Appel late Firm, P.A., South Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
David J. Horr, Stephanie H. Wylie, Horr, Novak & Skipp, PA, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and COX, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Arcadin Rodrigues, a citizen of India, appeals the district court's judgment dismissing his civil action and requiring that he proceed to arbitrate his claims against Royal Carribean Cruises, Ltd.
Rodrigues challenges on this appeal the district court's order requiring arbitration, presenting the following arguments: first, the arbitration agreement is void as against public policy because it forecloses Rodrigues's statutory claims under the Jones Act and the Wage Act; second, the arbitration agreement at issue does not meet the standards required for enforcing it; third, the forum selection clause is void as against public policy; fourth, and lastly, Rodrigues contends he cannot contractually waive his judicial remedy for maintenance and cure.
The fourth argument was not presented to the district court and we decline to address it here. See Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331-32 (11th Cir.2004).
The first three arguments Rodrigues presents were presented to the district court and properly considered and rejected in the district court's opinion. (R. 2-29 at 7-9.) We affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
AFFIRMED.