United States / 04 June 2002 / United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit / Ernesto Francisco v. Stolt Achievement MT / 01-30694
| Country | United States |
| Court | United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit |
| Date | 04 June 2002 |
| Parties | Ernesto Francisco v. Stolt Achievement MT |
| Case number | 01-30694 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | I | II | V | I(3) | II(1) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(e) |
| Source | online: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/ (official website of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit) |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | The Appellant, a Philippine national, entered into a Philippines Overseas Employment Administration contract with Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group, Inc. (“Stolt”), a Liberian corporation. The employment contract contained an arbitration agreement. The Appellant was injured while working and sued Stolt in Louisiana state court, asserting claims under the Jones Act and general maritime law. Stolt removed the case to the Federal District Court, arguing that the Appellant was bound by the arbitration agreement in the employment contract and that the arbitration agreement was governed by the NYC. The Appellant filed a motion to remand the case to the state court and Stolt filed a motion to compel arbitration under Section 206 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). The district court denied the motion to remand and granted the motion to compel arbitration, dismissing the suit. The Appellant appealed, arguing that his case did not fall under the NYC and Section 1 of the FAA. He also relied on Articles V(1)(c) NYC and V(1)(e) NYC. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal. The Court held that all of the jurisdictional prerequisites had been met for the arbitration agreement to be enforced: there was an agreement in writing; the agreement provided for arbitration in the territory of a signatory of the NYC; the agreement arose out of a legal relationship, whether contractual or not, which was considered commercial in nature; at least one of the parties to the agreement was not an American citizen; and the commercial relationship had a reasonable connection to one or more foreign states. The Court then noted that employment contracts for seamen fell under Article II(1) NYC and Section 202 of the FAA. The Court reasoned that according to Article I(3) NYC and Section 201 of the FAA, which follows the text of the NYC, the United States, when adopting the NYC, agreed to apply the NYC to differences arising out of legal relationship that were considered commercial under the national law of the United States. The Court concluded that an employment contract is “commercial” and thus falls under the scope of the NYC. Lastly, the Court noted that Article V(1) NYC can only be applied after an award had been made, and thus could not be invoked by the Appellant in the present case. |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
