Case Name: Elvis Mueller CRISTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MSC MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY SA., MSC Cruises (USA), Inc., MSC Crociere, S.A., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-11-26
Citations: 583 F. App'x 903
Docket Number: No. 14-11241
Parties: Elvis Mueller CRISTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MSC MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY SA., MSC Cruises (USA), Inc., MSC Crociere, S.A., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and COX, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 903–904

Head Matter:
Elvis Mueller CRISTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MSC MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY SA., MSC Cruises (USA), Inc., MSC Crociere, S.A., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-11241
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Nov. 26, 2014.
Carlos Felipe Llinas Negret, Michael A. Winkleman, Ricardo Valdes Alsina, Lipcon Margulies Alsina & Winkleman, PA, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jeffrey Bradford Maltzman, Steve Holman, Rafaela Castells, Maltzman & Partners, PA, Coral Gables, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and COX, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
This case arises out of a number of injuries that Plaintiff, Elvis Cristy, allegedly suffered while employed by Defendants, MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA., MSC Cruises (USA), Inc., and MSC Crociere, S.A. The district court granted Defendants' motion to compel arbitration, and Plaintiff appealed.
The Plaintiff presents two issues on appeal. First, Plaintiff contends that the arbitration agreement is void as against public policy. Second, Plaintiff contends that, in holding that Plaintiff may not raise a public policy defense at the motion to compel arbitration stage, the district court failed to follow Thomas v. Carnival Corp., 573 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir.2009), and, in so doing, failed to follow the prior precedent rule.
The district court properly rejected Plaintiffs argument that the agreement is void as against public policy, holding, in a well-reasoned opinion, that "the litigant must assert the defense after the arbitration has concluded." (Dist. Court Order, Doc. 23 at 3).
In reaching this holding, the district court properly rejected the Plaintiffs second contention — that the district court should have followed Thomas. As the district court properly recognized, (Dist. Court Order at 3), Thomas is inconsistent with our previous decision in Bautista v. Star Cruises, 396 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir.2005).
For the foregoing reasons, the district court's order compelling arbitration is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.