Agnelo Gonsalvez v. Celebrity Cruises Inc.

Case: 13-11189 Date Filed: 11/25/2013 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-11189
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-22287-JAL
AGNELO GONSALVEZ,
RALPH BARRETO,
ALEX MENEZES,
VIANO RODRIGUEZ,
ALBINO FERNANDNES,
CAETANO M. FERNANDES,
CASTANO DIAS,
PHILIP RODRIGUES,
JOSE BONIFACIO ESTEVES,
PIEDADE CAETANO FERNANDES,
MARCELINO FERNANDES,
ANTONY MARIO LOBO,
ANTONIO PEDRO FERNANDES,
PEDRO RODRIGUEZ,
RAMES CHITNISIS,
UMAKANT CHODANKAR,
ATANASIO MENEZES,
CIRILO SILVEIRA,
REGINALDO PEREIRA,
BRAZIHNO D'SOUZA,
CAETANO P. FERNANDES,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
Case: 13-11189 Date Filed: 11/25/2013 Page: 2 of 6
versus
CELEBRITY CRUISES INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(November 25, 2013)
Before CARNES, Chief Judge, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The plaintiffs in this appeal are former stateroom attendants who worked
aboard cruise ships operated by the defendant. The conflict between the parties
arose over the plaintiffs’ claim that the defendant unlawfully withheld some of
their wages in violation of the Seaman’s Wage Act, 46 U.S.C. § 10313. After the
plaintiffs demanded arbitration to resolve the dispute, the defendant moved to
dismiss the demand because the plaintiffs had not complied with their collective
bargaining agreement’s grievance procedure, which was a precondition to
submitting a dispute for arbitration. On January 22, 2011, the arbitrator granted
the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Unsatisfied with this outcome, the plaintiffs brought suit in federal court on
June 19, 2012. They sought to vacate the arbitration award as contrary to United
2
Case: 13-11189 Date Filed: 11/25/2013 Page: 3 of 6
States public policy under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Arbitral Awards (Convention), June 10, 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517. The
district court dismissed their suit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) as barred by the
statute of limitations. The plaintiffs now appeal.
I.
We review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6). Ironworkers Local Union 68 v. AstraZeneca Pharm., LP, 634 F.3d
1352, 1359 (11th Cir. 2011). A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal on statute of limitations
grounds is appropriate “if it is apparent from the face of the complaint that the
claim is time-barred.” La Grasta v. First Union Sec., Inc., 358 F.3d 840, 845 (11th
Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted).
The parties dispute the applicable statute of limitations for an action to
vacate an arbitration award under the Convention. The Convention does not
mention vacatur actions or what the relevant limitations period might be.1 It does,
however, expressly authorize actions to “confirm” arbitration awards and provides
for a three-year statute of limitations for such actions. 9 U.S.C. § 207. The
plaintiffs argue that this three-year limitations period should apply to vacatur
actions under the Convention as well.
1
The district court observed that there is conflicting authority on whether the Convention
actually authorizes actions to vacate arbitration awards. Because resolution of that issue is not
necessary for the disposition of this appeal, we assume without deciding that the Convention
permits such actions.
3
Case: 13-11189 Date Filed: 11/25/2013 Page: 4 of 6
The Convention also contains a residual clause which provides that Chapter
1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applies to actions brought under the
Convention, so long as it does not conflict with the Convention or its implementing
legislation. 9 U.S.C. § 208. Under Chapter 1 of the FAA a party may seek to have
a court vacate an award up to three months after the award is filed or delivered. 9
U.S.C. §§ 10, 12. Because the Convention does not expressly provide a statute of
limitations for vacatur actions, the defendant argues that this three-month
limitations period applies via the residual clause to any such actions brought under
the Convention.
We find the defendant’s argument persuasive. The Convention provides for
a three-year limitations period only for suits to “confirm” an award. 9 U.S.C.
§ 207. It does not state a limitations period for vacatur actions. As a result, the
FAA’s three-month limitations period for vacatur actions, which is not in conflict
with the Convention, applies through the residual clause. See 9 U.S.C. § 208. The
plaintiffs’ suit to vacate the arbitration award was brought more than a year after
that award was entered. We conclude it was barred by the statute of limitations,
and the district court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim.
The defendant has requested that we sanction the plaintiffs for pursuing a
baseless appeal under our decision in B.L. Harbert International, Inc. v. Hercules
Steel Co., 441 F.3d 905 (11th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Frazier v.
4
Case: 13-11189 Date Filed: 11/25/2013 Page: 5 of 6
Citifinancial Corp., 604 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2010). In Hercules Steel we
expressed frustration with “those who attempt to salvage arbitration losses through
litigation that has no sound basis in the law applicable to arbitration awards” and
stated that we were “ready, willing, and able to consider imposing sanctions in
appropriate cases.” 414 F.3d at 914.
We conclude that sanctions are not appropriate in this case because the
plaintiffs’ appeal was not baseless. At the time the plaintiffs filed their appeal, we
had not addressed the appropriate limitations period for vacatur actions under the
Convention and there is at least some authority supporting the plaintiffs’ position.
Cf. Jam. Commodity Trading Co. v. Connell Rice & Sugar Co., No. 87 Civ. 6369
(JMC), 1991 WL 123962, at *2–3 (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 1991) (applying three-year
limitations period to motion to vacate arbitration award brought under the
Convention in opposition to an action to confirm the award). The plaintiffs also
cited relevant legal precedent to argue on the merits that the Convention’s public
policy defense should apply on these facts. See 9 U.S.C. § 207 (“The court shall
confirm the award unless it finds one of the grounds for refusal or deferral of
recognition or enforcement of the award specified in the said Convention.”);
Convention, art. V(2)(b) (permitting signatory countries to refuse to recognize or
enforce foreign arbitration awards if “recognition or enforcement of the award
5
Case: 13-11189 Date Filed: 11/25/2013 Page: 6 of 6
would be contrary to the public policy of that country”). Under these
circumstances, we conclude that sanctions are not warranted.
AFFIRMED.
6