John Gomez v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 704 F.3d 882

Lobo I held the Convention and 9 U.S.C. §§ 202-208 superseded the Seaman’s Wage Act and required arbitration of a foreign seaman’s wage claim under a CBA.
Lobo II added a class action against FIT and Celebrity under LMRA §301 and NLRA §9(a) alleging hybrid and non-hybrid wage/fair representation claims by foreign crewmembers; court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and then on other grounds.
Gomez v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc. asserted Seaman’s Wage Act remedies against Celebrity for tips withheld; district court dismissed under res judicata doctrine.
The Stewards (foreign employees) appealed, contending Benz and McCulloch do not foreclose LMRA/NLRA application and that §301 can be broader than the Seaman’s Wage Act.
The Eleventh Circuit holds Benz and McCulloch control internal affairs of foreign vessels; LMRA/NLRA do not apply to wage disputes between foreign nationals aboard foreign ships.
Res judicata bars Gomez because Gomez’s wage claim shares same nucleus of operative facts as the LMRA claim in Lobo II.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether LMRA/NLRA apply to wage disputes on a foreign vessel between foreign parties	Stewards rely on LMRA/NLRA applicability.	Benz and McCulloch foreclose application to wholly foreign disputes.	No; LMRA/NLRA do not apply.
Whether Benz implicitly overruled or was superseded by later cases (e.g., Hellenic Lines) for maritime contract disputes	Stewards argue Hellenic Lines alters analysis.	McCulloch/Benz remain controlling; Hellenic Lines not extended to maritime contracts.	Benz and McCulloch remain controlling; Hellenic Lines not applied here.
Whether the Stewards’ non-hybrid NLRA duty of fair representation claim is cognizable in federal court	NLRA may reach conduct of foreign unions through U.S. connections.	NLRA does not apply to foreign vessel internal affairs; no federal duty of fair representation here.	Not; dismissed for lack of federal-duty basis; no viable NLRA claim.
Whether the September 2009 LMRA dismissal is a final judgment and thus preclusive for Gomez	Dismissal not final; collateral estoppel applies.	Dismissal was final on merits and precludes Gomez.	September 2009 order not final; July 2010 judgment renders later preclusion valid; Gomez barred.
Whether Gomez and Lobo II share the same nucleus of operative facts for res judicata	LMRA dispute is different in Lobo II than Seaman’s Wage Act in Gomez.	Complaints allege identical facts; same nucleus.	Yes; same nucleus of operative fact; Gomez barred.

Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo, S.A., 353 U.S. 138 (1957) (LMRA not extendable to wage disputes involving foreign seamen on foreign ships)
McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Honduras, 372 U.S. 10 (1963) (NLRA does not apply to foreign seamen aboard foreign vessels; internal affairs doctrine)
Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 545 U.S. 119 (2005) (comity and internal affairs considerations in applying statutes to foreign vessels)
Dowd v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n., AFL-CIO, 975 F.2d 779 (11th Cir. 1992) (NLRA applicability to foreign unions working with American concerns)
U.S. Bulk Carriers, Inc. v. Arguelles, 400 U.S. 351 (1971) (§301 as optional remedy; Seaman’s Wage Act not implicitly overruled)
Hall v. Tower Land & Inv. Co., 512 F.2d 481 (5th Cir. 1975) (adjudication on the merits when dismissing for failure to state a claim)
Citibank, N.A. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp., 904 F.2d 1498 (11th Cir. 1990) (final merits judgment where dismissal with prejudice)
First Ala. Bank, N.A. v. Parsons Steel, Inc., 825 F.2d 1475 (11th Cir. 1987) (non-appealable interlocutory orders and collateral estoppel)
Piper Aircraft Corp. v. National/Jan, 244 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2001) (definition of same nucleus of operative fact for res judicata)
In re Piper Aircraft Corp., 244 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2001) (identifies same nucleus of operative fact standard)