## Facts

- A boiler explosion aboard the S/S NORWAY in the Port of Miami killed six crewmembers and injured four.
- The injured crewmembers and personal representatives of the deceased sued Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd. (shipowner) and Star Cruises (alleged parent) in Florida state court.
- Plaintiffs asserted Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness claims, and maritime-law claims for maintenance, cure, and unearned wages.
- Each crewmember’s employment agreement with Norwegian Cruise Line included a written arbitration clause; the agreements were executed in the Philippines.
- Norwegian Cruise Line removed the cases to federal court under 9 U.S.C. § 205 as actions related to arbitration agreements governed by the New York Convention.
- The district court compelled arbitration in the Philippines and effectively ended the court actions; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the FAA’s § 1 exemption for “seamen’s” employment contracts prevents enforcement of arbitration clauses that otherwise fall under the New York Convention and its implementing statute (FAA Chapter 2).
2. Whether the crew arbitration clauses satisfied the Convention Act’s threshold requirements for an agreement to “fall under” the Convention.
3. Whether asserted defenses (including unconscionability and claimed non-arbitrability of Jones Act and maritime claims) barred compelling arbitration at the enforcement stage.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the order compelling arbitration.
- The court held the FAA § 1 seamen exemption does not bar enforcement of arbitration agreements governed by the Convention Act.
- The court found the arbitration agreements met the Convention’s prerequisites (written agreement, commercial relationship, arbitration in a Convention signatory, and an adequate foreign nexus).
- The court rejected plaintiffs’ defenses as insufficient to defeat enforcement under the Convention’s limited refusal grounds.

## Legal Principles

- In a case governed by the New York Convention, FAA Chapter 2 supplies the authority to compel arbitration; FAA Chapter 1 applies only to the extent it does not conflict with the Convention or Chapter 2. See 9 U.S.C. § 208.
- The FAA § 1 exemption for seamen’s employment contracts is a limitation on Chapter 1 and does not displace Chapter 2’s mandate to enforce Convention-covered agreements where the exemption would conflict with the Convention’s enforcement scheme.
- An arbitration agreement “falls under” the Convention when it is written, concerns a commercial legal relationship, provides for arbitration in a Convention signatory nation, and has the requisite international element (such as non-U.S. parties or performance/enforcement abroad).
- At the motion-to-compel stage in a Convention case, courts focus on the Convention’s threshold requirements and narrow defenses to enforcement, not merits-based challenges or speculative concerns about remedies or foreign law.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit required foreign crewmembers to arbitrate Jones Act and maritime claims in the Philippines under the New York Convention, ruling that FAA § 1’s seamen exemption does not prevent enforcement of Convention-covered arbitration agreements.


Bautista v. Star Cruises, Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., 396 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2005)