Wong v. Carnival Corp., 032715 FED11, 14-10856
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM:|
|Party Name:||FELIX ARTURO LOAYZA WONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||March 27, 2015|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|
DO NOT PUBLISH
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-22988-WJZ
Felix Wong appeals an order that compelled him to arbitrate his employment dispute with Carnival Corporation. We affirm.
Wong argues that the arbitration clause in his contracts of employment is void as against public policy, but his argument is foreclosed by our precedent in Lindo v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., 652 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2011). Wong argues that the application of Panamian law, as required by his arbitration agreement, would bar his claims for negligence under the Jones Act and for maintenance and cure and unseaworthiness under the general maritime law. But in Lindo we held that a seaman's argument that a choice-of-law clause would foreclose all meaningful relief under the laws of the United States was not a viable defense to the enforcement of an arbitration agreement. Id. at 1283–85.
Wong argues that Lindo is no longer good law for two reasons, but his arguments fail. First, Wong argues that American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 570 U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2304 (2013), recognizes that federal courts can invalidate an arbitration agreement as against public policy if it prevents the effective vindication of a federal statutory right, but the Supreme Court held no such thing. The Supreme Court instead stated that we must...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP