## Facts

- Yana Prokopeva, a Russian citizen, worked as a stewardess aboard the *M/V Carnival Conquest*, a vessel owned by Carnival Corporation d/b/a Carnival Cruise Lines (Carnival).
- In July 2007, while the *Conquest* was on a voyage that departed from Galveston, Texas, Prokopeva alleged she injured her back and body while working onboard.
- Prokopeva filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Corpus Christi Division) against Carnival and the cruise ship *Conquest*, asserting maritime employment injury claims, including negligence under the Jones Act and unseaworthiness.
- Prokopeva’s employment relationship with Carnival was governed by a written employment contract titled a “Seafarer’s Agreement.”
- The Seafarer’s Agreement included an arbitration clause providing that, except for wage disputes, “any and all disputes arising out of or in connection with” the agreement must be resolved by arbitration.
- The agreement required arbitration to occur in one of four locations—England, Monaco, Panama, or the Philippines—selected based on the employee’s home country; each location is in a country that is a signatory to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention).
- The agreement contained acknowledgments stating that the employment relationship was a “commercial legal relationship,” that Prokopeva accepted all terms and conditions (including arbitration), and that Carnival would not have employed her without that acceptance.
- Carnival filed an opposed motion to compel arbitration and to stay the federal case under Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which implements the New York Convention.

## Issues

1. Whether the Seafarer’s Agreement and its arbitration clause “fall under” the New York Convention (as implemented by FAA Chapter 2) so that the court must refer the parties to arbitration.
2. Whether Prokopeva’s asserted claims based on shipboard injury during employment—including Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness—are within the scope of the agreement’s broad arbitration clause (with an exception for wage disputes).
3. Whether Prokopeva showed any Convention-based ground to refuse referral to arbitration—i.e., that the arbitration agreement is “null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed.”

## Decision

- The court granted Carnival’s motion to compel arbitration.
- The court ordered Prokopeva’s claims to arbitration pursuant to the Seafarer’s Agreement.
- The court stayed the federal action pending completion of arbitration.

## Legal Principles

- An arbitration agreement falls under the New York Convention when: (1) there is a written arbitration agreement, (2) the agreement provides for arbitration in a Convention-signatory country, (3) the agreement arises from a commercial legal relationship, and (4) at least one party is not a U.S. citizen.
- When the Convention applies, the court’s role at the referral stage is limited: the court must order arbitration unless the party opposing arbitration establishes that the agreement is “null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed” under Article II(3) of the Convention.
- Broad arbitration language covering “any and all disputes arising out of or in connection with” an employment agreement reaches employment-related injury disputes tied to that relationship, absent an applicable carveout (such as a wage-dispute exception).
- Statutory maritime claims, including Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims, may be referred to arbitration under a Convention-governed clause absent a showing that Congress barred arbitration of those claims or that a Convention defense applies.
- After compelling arbitration of claims covered by a valid arbitration clause, a federal court may stay the litigation while arbitration proceeds.

## Conclusion

In *Prokopeva v. Carnival Corp.*, the Southern District of Texas held that Prokopeva’s Seafarer’s Agreement satisfied the New York Convention requirements and that her employment-related injury claims fell within the agreement’s broad arbitration clause; because Prokopeva did not establish a Convention defense to enforcement, the court compelled arbitration in the contract’s designated foreign forum and stayed the federal case pending arbitration.


Prokopeva v. Carnival Corp., 2008 WL 4276975 (2008)