927 F. Supp. 2d 348
E.D. La.2013Background
- Plaintiffs are Filipino workers alleging fraudulent recruitment, visa issuance, and exploitation in Louisiana’s oil and gas sector.
- Defendants include two Philippine-based entities (V Manpower Philippines, POMI) and several Louisiana-based employers and individuals.
- Plaintiffs assert multiple statutory and common-law claims including Trafficking Victims Protection Act, RICO, civil rights, FLSA, KKK Act, and state tort and contract claims.
- Plaintiffs seek class/collective action treatment under FRCP 23 and the FLSA, with the case involving numerous plaintiffs and defendants.
- Defendants move to dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) or, alternatively, to compel arbitration under the Seafarer Standard Terms’ clause (Section 29) and stay proceedings.
- Court proceedings addressed waiver of arbitration rights, validity of arbitration agreements, and the scope of arbitration and stay under the FAA and the Convention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether movants waived arbitration rights. | Plaintiffs argue waiver due to multiple Rule 12 motions and litigation posture. | Movants contend no waiver; they reserved rights and moved to arbitration, not abandoning it. | Waiver not established; presumption against waiver preserved; reservations considered. |
| Whether there is a written agreement to arbitrate for the nineteen non-signing plaintiffs. | Lamoste and Real signed Seafarer Standard Terms; nineteen others did not. | Contracts incorporate Seafarer Terms by reference; all plaintiffs bound. | Two signed agreements cover Lamoste and Real; nineteen plaintiffs have no written arbitration agreement. |
| Whether Philippine law mandates arbitration notwithstanding lack of contract. | Philippine law compels arbitration for seafarers/POEA terms. | POEA rules do not require arbitration for non-seafarers or when incorporation is absent. | Philippine law does not compel arbitration for nineteen non-signatories; arbitration denied for them. |
| Scope of the arbitration clause and whether it encompasses non-FLSA claims. | Arbitration clause reaches only certain employment-arising claims. | Clause may cover broader disputes arising from employment. | Clause is narrow but covers some employment-related claims; other claims remain non-arbitrable or for arbitrator determination. |
| Whether a stay should be entered for Lamoste/Real claims while arbitration proceeds. | Stays not appropriate for non-arbitrable claims. | Stay should apply to Lamoste/Real claims pending arbitration. | Stay ordered for Lamoste/Real against movants; other claims proceed in court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lim v. Offshore Specialty Fabricators, Inc., 404 F.3d 898 (5th Cir. 2005) (Arbitration under Convention factors; commercial relationship)
- Francisco v. Stolt Achievement MT, 293 F.3d 270 (5th Cir. 2002) (Arbitration/enforcement under Convention; employment contract as commercial relationship)
- Jones v. Halliburton Co., 583 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 2009) (Arbitration scope—claims arising from employment)
- Doe v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., 657 F.3d 1204 (11th Cir. 2011) (Arbitration under convention; scope of “arises from” standard)
- Sedeo v. Pemex Mexican Nat’l Oil, 767 F.2d 1140 (5th Cir. 1985) (Conventional four-factor test for arbitrability)
- Freudensprung v. Offshore Technical Services, Inc., 379 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 2004) (FAA and Convention applicability to arbitration)
- Keytrade USA, Inc. v. Ain Temouchent M/V, 404 F.3d 891 (5th Cir. 2005) (Presumption against waiver in arbitration-rights)
- In re Mirant Corp., 613 F.3d 584 (5th Cir. 2010) (Waiver analysis; timing of arbitration demand)