United States / 09 July 2012 / United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit / St. Hugh Williams v. NCL (Bahamas) LTD., d.b.a. NCL. / 11–12150
Country | United States |
Court | United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit |
Date | 09 July 2012 |
Parties | St. Hugh Williams v. NCL (Bahamas) LTD., d.b.a. NCL. |
Case number | 11–12150 |
Applicable NYC Provisions | II | II(3) |
Source | online: http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov (official website of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit) |
Languages | English |
Summary | The Plaintiff-Appellant, Williams (“Williams”), sued his employer, the Defendant-Appellee, NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. (“NCL”), in Florida state court, raising, inter alia, claims under the Jones Act, which provides seamen with a special statutory framework for bringing negligence and related claims against their employers. NCL removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), which grants a federal district court removal jurisdiction over cases it determines relate to an arbitration agreement governed by the NYC. Although the District Court agreed with NCL that it had removal jurisdiction over the dispute, it refused to exercise its jurisdiction under the NYC because it concluded that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable. The District Court therefore remanded the case back to state court. NCL appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the order denying arbitration and remanding to state court, and remanded the matter to the District Court with instructions to compel arbitration. It held that contrary to the lower court’s findings, an arbitration agreement cannot be “null and void” on the grounds that it violates public policy under Article II NYC. The Court explained that the “null and void” defense under Article II(3) NYC only encompasses standard breach-of-contract defenses that can be applied neutrally on an international scale, such as fraud, mistake, duress, and waiver. Concluding that Williams had not asserted any of the permissible grounds for the refusal of enforcement under the NYC, the Court directed the lower court to compel arbitration. |
see also : |
Attachment (1)
Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |