United States / 20 July 2012 / United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit / Milton Escobal v. Celebration Cruise Operator Inc., Celebration Cruise Line LLC / 11–14022
| Country | United States |
| Court | United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit |
| Date | 20 July 2012 |
| Parties | Milton Escobal v. Celebration Cruise Operator Inc., Celebration Cruise Line LLC |
| Case number | 11–14022 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | II | II(3) |
| Source |
online: PACER |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | The Plaintiff-Appellant, Escobal (“Escobal”), a Peruvian seaman who was injured while working on a cruise ship for the Defendants-Appellees, Celebration Cruise Operator’s (“Celebration Cruise”), brought an action in Florida state court for negligence under the Jones Act. The Jones Act provides seamen with a special statutory framework for bringing negligence and related claims against their employers. Celebration Cruise removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Section 205 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), which grants a federal district court removal jurisdiction over cases that it determines relate to an arbitration agreement governed by the NYC. The District Court compelled arbitration under the NYC based on a provision in Escobal’s employment contract requiring all disputes arising out of the contract to be resolved by arbitration in the Bahamas. Escobal appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the arbitration agreement was not mandatory and that he could not be compelled to arbitrate against a defendant who was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower court’s order compelling arbitration. First, the Court held that the arbitration agreement was unambiguous and mandatorily required arbitration of the parties’ dispute. Second, the Court rejected Escobal’s claims that he could not be compelled to arbitrate against one of the Defendants who was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement. The Court reasoned that Escobal’s claim against the non-signatory Defendant was “inextricably intertwined with his claims against the contract signatory Celebration Cruise Operator”, and Escobal was estopped, under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, from refusing to arbitrate against the non-signatory Defendant. |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
