Case Law
United States / 24 February 2012 / United States, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida / Yuliana Ruiz, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Gregory Navarro, deceased v. Carnival Corporation d/b/a Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. / 11–23170
Country | United States |
Court | United States, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida |
Date | 24 February 2012 |
Parties | Yuliana Ruiz, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Gregory Navarro, deceased v. Carnival Corporation d/b/a Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. |
Case number | 11–23170 |
Applicable NYC Provisions | II | II(3) |
Source |
online: PACER |
Languages | English |
Summary | The Defendant, Carnival Corporation (“Carnival”), sought to remove, for the second time, a suit filed in Florida state court by the Plaintiff, Yuliana Ruiz (“Ruiz”), to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). Section 205 of the FAA grants a federal district court removal jurisdiction over cases it determines relate to an arbitration agreement governed by the NYC. In an earlier proceeding, Carnival had unsuccessfully sought to remove the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida pursuant to Section 205 of the FAA. In originally remanding the case to state court, the Court had held that it had no jurisdiction over the dispute because the parties’ arbitration agreement was null and void, i.e. unenforceable, on the grounds of public policy. Following the case's remand, however, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued an opinion in a different case rejecting such a public policy defence at the enforcement stage, and Carnival subsequently filed a second motion for removal. In seeking removal for a second time, Carnival cited the Circuit Court of Appeals' judgment holding that arbitration agreements could not be invalidated on the grounds of public policy at the arbitration agreement enforcement stage. It argued that the law in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit had changed such that Carnival was now entitled to removal of the case to federal district court. Ruiz sought to remand the case to state court for a second time. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida remanded the case back to state court for a second time. The Court held that a subsequent court decision in an unrelated case involving different parties did not provide a basis for Carnival to seek removal for a second time. The Court recognized that a subsequent decision from a higher court may provide a basis for seeking removal a second time, but only if it was directed at a particular defendant and expressly authorized that same defendant to remove an action against it in another case involving similar facts and legal issues. However, that was not the case in the present dispute. Thus, the subsequent court decision did not constitute an “order or other paper” in the present case justifying reconsideration of an earlier removal request. Despite its refusal to grant Carnival’s removal request, the Court denied Ruiz’s motion for attorneys’ fees, holding that the law on this issue was not settled and Carnival had a reasonable basis for seeking removal a second time. |
Attachment (1)
Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |