Opinion ID: 3044256
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: denial of escobar’s motion to remand

Text: Escobar’s final claim is that his case was improperly removed from state court. Escobar’s argument ignores the express terms of the Convention Act. As a general matter, a defendant may not remove a Jones Act claim brought in state court, even if the parties are diverse. Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438, 455, 121 S. Ct. 993, 1004 (2001) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1445(a)). 19 Section 205 of the Convention Act, however, creates an exception to this general rule and provides for the removal of cases governed by the New York Convention. See 9 U.S.C. § 205. Specifically, § 205 states that, “[w]here the subject matter of an action or proceeding pending in a State court relates to an arbitration agreement or award falling under the [New York] Convention,” a defendant may “remove such action or proceeding to the district court of the United States.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, the Convention Act permits a defendant to remove a case relating to an arbitration agreement covered by the New York Convention. See Bautista, 396 F.3d at 1294. policy. Escobar, however, failed to raise this argument in the district court. Regardless, this public-policy argument would also be premature. See Lindo, 652 F.3d at 1280–82; see also New York Convention, art. V(2)(b). 19 Although § 1445(a) provides that certain civil actions in state court against a railroad “may not be removed to any district court of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1445(a), the Supreme Court in Lewis noted that the Jones Act incorporated § 1445(a) by reference. Lewis, 531 U.S. at 455, 121 S. Ct. at 1004–05; see also 46 U.S.C. § 30104 (stating that the “[l]aws of the United States regulating recovery for personal injury to, or death of, a railway employee apply to an action” brought under the Jones Act). 25 Case: 14-11793 Date Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 26 of 26 Here, Escobar raised claims relating to an injury suffered during his employment with Celebration. Escobar’s employment contract required arbitration of all claims “arising out of or in connection with” Escobar’s employment. The subject matter of Escobar’s action in state court therefore related to his arbitration agreement. Furthermore, as explained supra, Part V, Escobar’s arbitration agreement met the four jurisdictional requirements and is governed by the New York Convention. Accordingly, Escobar’s Jones Act claims brought in state court were subject to removal, pursuant to § 205, see Bautista, 396 F.3d at 1294, and the district court did not err in denying Escobar’s motion to remand.