Opinion ID: 3044256
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: escobar’s arbitration agreement

Text: In determining whether to compel arbitration under the Convention Act, a district court conducts “a very limited inquiry.” Id. at 1294 (quotation marks omitted). An arbitration agreement is governed by the New York Convention if the following four jurisdictional requirements are met: (1) the agreement is “in writing within the meaning of the [New York] Convention”; (2) “the agreement 5 The Third Circuit reached the same conclusion in an unpublished opinion. See Razo v. Nordic Empress Shipping Ltd., 362 F. App’x 243, 245–46 (3d Cir. 2009) (unpublished). 6 Escobar argues that we are not bound to follow Bautista because Bautista itself failed to follow existing Eleventh Circuit and Supreme Court precedent. In support of this argument, Escobar cites to cases applying the FAA’s seamen’s exemption to contracts, but none of these cited cases involve arbitration agreements governed by the New York Convention. Accordingly, we reject Escobar’s argument that Bautista is not good law. 9 Case: 14-11793 Date Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 10 of 26 provides for arbitration in the territory of a signatory of the [New York] Convention”; (3) “the agreement arises out of a legal relationship, whether contractual or not, which is considered commercial”; and (4) one of the parties to the agreement is not an American citizen. Id. at 1295 n.7; see also Standard Bent Glass Corp. v. Glassrobots Oy, 333 F.3d 440, 449 (3d Cir. 2003). If the arbitration agreement satisfies those four jurisdictional prerequisites, the district court must order arbitration unless one of the New York Convention’s affirmative defenses applies. Bautista, 396 F.3d at 1294–95. Further, a district court “must be ‘mindful that the Convention Act generally establishes a strong presumption in favor of arbitration of international commercial disputes.’” Lindo, 652 F.3d at 1272 (quoting Bautista, 396 F.3d at 1294–95 (quotation marks omitted)). A district court cannot refuse to enforce international arbitration clauses merely because “a different resolution would be reached in a purely domestic setting.” Id. (citing Bautista, 396 F.3d at 1302). Indeed, “under the [New York] Convention and Supreme Court and Circuit precedent, there is a strong presumption in favor of freely-negotiated contractual choice-of-law and forum-selection provisions, and this presumption applies with special force in the field of international commerce.” Id. at 1275 (collecting cases). It is undisputed that the four jurisdictional requirements are met. Escobar’s arbitration agreement is in writing, arises out of a commercial relationship, and 10 Case: 14-11793 Date Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 11 of 26 provides for arbitration in the Bahamas, a signatory nation; and Escobar is not an American citizen. This case is primarily about whether Escobar has an affirmative defense to the enforcement of his arbitration agreement. To evaluate that issue, we review the two stages of enforcement.