St. Hugh Williams v. NCL (Bahamas) LTD.

[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 9, 2012
No. 11-12150 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-22046-JAL
ST. HUGH WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD.,
d.b.a. NCL,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 9, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal concerns our authority to review an order remanding an action
based on an antecedent and erroneous ruling that an agreement to arbitrate was
unenforceable. St. Hugh Williams filed in a Florida court a complaint that, while
working onboard the M/V Norwegian Sky, he was injured as a result of the
negligence and other tortious conduct of the owner of the ship, NCL (Bahamas)
Ltd. See 46 U.S.C. § 30104. NCL removed the action to the district court on the
ground that Williams was contractually bound to arbitrate his complaint under the
United Nations Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral
Awards, 9 U.S.C. § 205, but Williams moved to remand the action to state court.
The district court ruled that the arbitration clause was unenforceable, see Thomas
v. Carnival Corp., 573 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir. 2009), and then the district court
granted Williams’s motion to remand. NCL appealed, and this Court later held, in
Lindo v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 652 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2011), that an agreement
to arbitrate under the Convention is enforceable. Williams argues that this Court
lacks jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), but we have jurisdiction to review the
denial of the motion to compel under City of Waco v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty
Co., 293 U.S. 140, 55 S. Ct. 6 (1934). We reverse the order denying the motion to
compel of NCL, vacate the order remanding Williams’s complaint to state court,
and remand with instructions to compel arbitration.
2
We may review the denial of the motion of NCL to compel arbitration under
an exception to section 1447(d). In Waco, the Supreme Court held that an
appellate court may review a decision of the district court that “in logic and in fact
. . . preceded that of remand” and that, “if not reversed or set aside, is conclusive
upon” the appellant. 293 U.S. at 143, 55 S. Ct. at 7. Waco “allows [an appellate
court] to review district court orders that lead to, but are separate from, orders of
remand and have a conclusive effect upon the ensuing state court action.”
Aquamar, S.A. v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., 179 F.3d 1279, 1286 (11th
Cir. 1999). The ruling that the arbitration clause was unenforceable was separate
from and led to the order of remand. The district court resolved the merits of the
motion to compel and then ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the
dispute between Williams and NCL. The ruling also “changes the contours of the
state court action after remand.” Id. Under Florida law, collateral estoppel applies
when the identical issue has been “fully litigated” between the identical parties
and “determined in a contest that result[ed] in a final decision of a court of
competent jurisdiction.” City of Oldsmar v. State, 790 So. 2d 1042, 1046 n.4 (Fla.
2001). On remand to a Florida court, NCL would be barred from compelling
Williams to arbitrate his complaint.
The district court erred when it denied the motion of NCL to compel
3
Williams to arbitrate his complaint. The district court based its ruling on our
decision in Thomas v. Carnival, 573 F.3d at 1122–24, where we refused to enforce
an agreement to arbitrate under the United Nations Convention on the ground that
it was “null and void as a matter of public policy” because the complainant could
not assert statutory claims for relief. We have since ruled in Lindo that Thomas is
inconsistent with our prior precedent in Bautista v. Star Cruises, 396 F.3d 1289,
1302 (11th Cir. 2005). “To the extent Thomas was applying Article II” of the
Convention, Thomas “failed to follow our precedent in . . . Bautista” by
recognizing public policy as an additional defense to enforcement of an arbitration
agreement. Lindo, 652 F.3d at 1277–78. Our precedent dictates that a court must
enforce an agreement to arbitrate under the Convention unless that agreement is
“null and void” as being “obtained through those limited situations, such as ‘fraud,
mistake, duress, and waiver,’ constituting ‘standard breach-of-contract defenses’
that ‘can be applied neutrally on an international scale.’” Id. at 1276 (quoting
Bautista, 396 F.3d at 1302). Williams did not assert any of these grounds in
response to the motion to compel, and NCL was entitled to compel Williams to
arbitrate.
We REVERSE the order denying the motion to compel of NCL, VACATE
the order remanding this action to state court, and REMAND with instructions to
4
compel Williams to arbitrate his dispute with NCL.
5