United States / 29 August 2011 / U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit / Lindo (Nicaragua) v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd. (Bahamas) / 10–10367
| Country | United States |
| Court | United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit |
| Date | 29 August 2011 |
| Parties | Lindo (Nicaragua) v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd. (Bahamas) |
| Case number | 10–10367 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | II | V(2)(b) | II(3) | II(1) |
| Source |
652 F.3d 1257, online: PACER |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | The Plaintiff, Harold Leonel Pineda Lindo (“Lindo”), brought an action against his employer, NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. (“NCL”). The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted NCL’s motion to compel arbitration, based on the arbitration agreement in Lindo’s employment contract. Lindo appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit enforced the arbitration clause in Lindo’s employment contract and compelled the arbitration of Lindo’s Jones Act negligence claim. In so ruling, the Court held that all 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 Convention; the agreement arose out of a legal relationship, whether contractual or not, which was considered commercial; a party to the agreement was not an American citizen; and the commercial relationship had some reasonable relationship to one or more foreign states. The Court then held that Article II(3) NYC applies at the “initial arbitration-enforcement stage” and requires that the courts enforce an agreement to arbitrate unless the agreement is “null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed”. The Court also held that Article V(2)(b) NYC applies at the “award-enforcement stage” and that Article II NYC contains no explicit or implicit public policy defence at the initial stage of enforcement of the arbitration agreement. Accordingly, the Court held that Lindo’s public policy defence only applied when a party seeks enforcement of an award. The Court concluded that the statutory claims under the Jones Act could be arbitrated and that there was no showing of fraud, mistake, duress, or waiver. |
| see also : |
|
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
