## Facts

- Harold Leonel Pineda Lindo, a Nicaraguan crewmember on the Bahamian-flag M/S Norwegian Dawn operated by NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., alleged he injured his back while working on NCL’s private island in the Bahamas and later required surgery.
- Lindo’s employment was governed by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and an individual contract incorporating the CBA.
- The contract required arbitration of employment disputes (including Jones Act claims) in the employee’s country of citizenship (Nicaragua) and applied the law of the vessel’s flag (Bahamian law).
- Lindo sued NCL in Florida state court asserting a single Jones Act negligence claim, alleging NCL failed to provide a safe workplace.
- NCL removed the case to federal court and moved to compel arbitration under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention).

## Issues

1. Whether, at the initial stage of enforcing an arbitration agreement under the New York Convention, a court may refuse to compel arbitration because the chosen foreign law would allegedly eliminate a U.S. statutory claim (a prospective-waiver/public-policy argument).
2. Whether the arbitration clause was unenforceable under the Convention as “null and void” due to unconscionability or public-policy objections.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the order compelling arbitration in Nicaragua under Bahamian law and the dismissal of the court action.
- The court held that prospective-waiver and public-policy arguments based on the potential inadequacy of foreign law are not grounds to deny a motion to compel arbitration at the initial enforcement stage.
- The court concluded that the Convention’s Article II “null and void” defense is narrow and did not encompass Lindo’s objections as presented.

## Legal Principles

- Under the New York Convention, analysis differs between (a) enforcing an arbitration agreement (Article II) and (b) enforcing an arbitral award (Article V).
- At the agreement-enforcement stage, Article II permits refusal only if the arbitration agreement is “null and void,” a limited exception generally confined to neutral contract defenses (e.g., fraud, mistake, duress, waiver).
- Arguments that the chosen foreign law or forum would effectively strip a claimant of U.S. statutory remedies implicate Article V’s public-policy defense and are addressed, if at all, after an award is issued.
- International arbitration clauses, including foreign forum and choice-of-law provisions, receive strong presumptive enforcement under the Convention absent a qualifying Article II defense.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit required arbitration of a seaman’s Jones Act claim pursuant to an international arbitration clause, holding that objections alleging foreign law would negate U.S. statutory rights must be deferred to the later award-enforcement stage under the New York Convention rather than used to block arbitration at the outset.


Lindo v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., 652 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2011)