Lindo v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd.
652 F.3d 1257
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Lindo, a Nicaragua citizen, sued NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. for Jones Act negligence; NCL operates cruise ships with Bahamian flag and Miami headquarters.
- Lindo’s contract requires arbitration under the New York Convention and Bahamian law, with arbitration to occur in Lindo’s country of citizenship if available, else Nassau, Bahamas.
- The Jones Act claim would be resolved by binding arbitration, potentially under Bahamian law, not U.S. law.
- The district court granted NCL’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the Jones Act claim; Lindo appealed.
- The amendment to the Jones Act in 2008 did not create a Congress-mandated exception to arbitrate Jones Act claims under the Convention; the contract remains enforceable at this stage.
- The court analyzes whether the arbitration clause should be enforced against a U.S. statutory claim in light of the New York Convention and long-standing precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arbitration should be enforced at the initial stage under the New York Convention | Lindo argues public policy/public policy defenses render arbitration unenforceable | NCL asserts strong presumption favoring enforcement of arbitration clauses under the Convention | Enforcement at the initial stage affirmed |
| Whether Article II’s 'null and void' defense allows raising public policy at arbitration-enforcement stage | Lindo relies on Article II to raise public policy defense upfront | Bautista/precedent narrow Article II defenses to fraud, duress, etc. | Article II defense limited; public policy defenses timing discussed but not allowed at this stage under majority view |
| Whether Article V public policy defense can be raised at arbitration-enforcement stage | Lindo argues public policy bars enforcement | Article V public policy defense applies to award-enforcement stage only | Public policy defense not available at initial arbitration-enforcement stage under majority view |
| Whether Thomas v. Carnival constrains Lindo’s argument or creates exception for Jones Act claims | Thomas supports invalidating the arbitration clause | Thomas is distinguishable and not controlling | Thomas does not aid at this stage; arbitration enforced under Convention |
Key Cases Cited
- M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1972) (strong presumption in favor of forum-selection clauses; enforce abroad)
- Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506 (U.S. 1974) (arbitration clauses must be respected; ties to Convention/Federal Arbitration Act)
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (U.S. 1985) (statutory claims arbitrable; exceptions reserved by Congress; footnote 19 on prospective waiver)
- Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros v. M/V Sky Reefer, 515 U.S. 528 (U.S. 1995) (public policy defense may be raised at award-enforcement stage; wait-and-review principle)
- Lipcon v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 148 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 1998) (enforce English forum/law despite potentially inadequate remedies; Bremen framework governs)
- Bautista v. Star Cruises, 396 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2005) (limits 'null and void' defense to narrow international-breach defenses; strong presumption in favor of arbitration under Convention)
- Thomas v. Carnival Corp., 573 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir. 2009) (distinguishes cases where foreign-law arbitrations may preclude U.S. remedies; not controlling here)