Skip to main content

Cruise Line Has No Right To Demand Arbitration Without Signing Arbitration Agreement


In CAPPELLO v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D317a (S.D. Fla. Aug. 10, 2012) (J. Altonaga), a crewmember and his wife filed a lawsuit in state court against Carnival Corporation (“Carnival”) alleging breach of warranty of seaworthiness, Jones Act negligence, failure to provide maintenance and cure, failure to provide prompt, proper and adequate maintenance and cure, common law negligence and loss of consortium. Carnival filed a Notice of Removal of the lawsuit attempting to compel the Plaintiff to arbitrate his claims against Carnival. The Plaintiffs in turn filed a Motion to Remand the case back to state court.
 
The District Court found that it lacked federal question jurisdiction over the seaman's action under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Convention because Convention does not apply. The court found that Carnival had not met the jurisdictional prerequisites of the Convention by presenting a signed arbitration agreement between parties and, instead, produced only an “Officer's Agreement” to which it is not a signatory. The District Court further held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel does not allow Carnival, as non-signatory to the document it relies on, to compel arbitration where it makes no showing of how the Plaintiffs' claims implicate terms of Officer's Agreement . The court reasoned that to extent Carnival contends the seaman was equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration because underlying incident giving rise to his claims arose while he was employed, and the seaman was employed by means of Officer's Agreement, Eleventh Circuit precedent forecloses this line of reasoning.
 
The court further found that there was no existential basis for federal jurisdiction under admiralty law, and Carnival alleged no other basis for federal jurisdiction. Therefore, the court held that because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, remand was appropriate and it is therefore inappropriate to rule on substantive merits of claim and granted the Plaintiffs leave to address appropriateness of attorney's fees and costs for improper removal.
 
If you are interested in receiving a complete copy of this decision, please feel free to contact me at mov@chaloslaw.com.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maritime Law--Florida's Arbitration Code Is Now Revised

Those of us that practice maritime law regularly must always be on the lookout for the contract that may contain an arbitration clause. Thus, any laws related to arbitration are important to those of us practicing in this sector.       The Florida legislature has revised the Florida Arbitration Code ("FAC") and named it the Revised Florida Arbitration Code (the " Revised Act"). Since 1967, the FAC had gone mostly unchanged. The Revised Act addresses concepts that were not addressed in the old law, such as the ability of arbitrators to issue provision remedies, challenges based on notice, consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings, required conflict disclosures by arbitrators, among other major changes. The Revised Act lays out a detailed framework for international arbitration conducted under Florida law and repeals sections of the FAC. The Revised Act spells out what experienced arbitrators knew the case law to be, but codifies it all in one pl...
4 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Lozman Case Revisited in Miami?

In Hoefling v. City of Miami , Case no.: 14-12482 (11th Cir. Jan. 25, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit revived almost all of Hoefling's claims. You ask, "Who is Hoefling?" Hoefling  lived on his sailboat Metis O moored off Dinner Key for nearly a decade—until the day he came home and it was gone. About three months earlier, an officer from the Miami Police Department's Marine Patrol Detail tagged Hoefling's vessel for lacking a sanitary device and a working anchor light. He had a deal to use the facilities at the nearby marina but quickly went out and reportedly bought what he needed to comply. Three months later while he was on a business trip, the City of Miami seized and destroyed his boat and all his belongings. As a result, he was homeless. He sued under § 1983, maritime law, and state law. He stated a claim under the Fourth Amendment for seizure and destruction without notice or cause and a “taking.”    At the ...
5 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Novel Rule B Attachment Rejected by Eleventh Circuit

In World Wide Supply OU v. Quail Cruises Ship Management , Case No. 14-14838 (11th Cir. Sept. 30, 2015), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order vacating an attachment of legal settlement funds.  At issue in this appeal was an attachment of property made pursuant to Supplemental Admiralty Rule B. This appeal had a complicated background, involving multiple lawsuits in federal district courts, Florida state court, and a Spanish bankruptcy court. The common denominator of these suits was Quail Cruises Ship Management, from which multiple parties, including participants in the appeal, tried to collect money that they believed Quail owed them. This is not surprising, as there have been numerous cases against Quail due to a failed cruise venture they operated. The money at issue arose from the legal settlement of a dispute over the purchase of a cruise ship featured on ABC Television Network’s long-running series, The Love Boat. The ...
5 comments
Read more