Cruise Ship Law

ERNESTO FRANCISCO VERSUS STOLT-NIELSEN, S.A., STOLT TANKERSJOINT SERVICES, and STEAMSHIP MUTUAL UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION LIMITED

CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-2231 SECTION: "R" (5)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23134
December 2, 2002, Decided
December 3, 2002, Filed, Entered

DISPOSITION: Plaintiff's motion to remand denied. Defendants' motion to compel arbitration as to Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. and Stolt Tankers Joint Services granted. Defendants' motion to stay plaintiff's claims against Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association granted. Plaintiff's motion to sever denied.

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff seaman sued defendants, a boat owner, a transportation company, and an insurer, for injuries suffered. The seaman moved for a jury trial on the issue of remand. Defendants moved to dismiss the action, to compel arbitration, or to stay the proceedings pending resolution of an arbitration proceeding in a related action. The seaman also moved to sever the insurer.

OVERVIEW: The seaman claimed that he was injured while working on the boat-owner's boat. As to the motion to remand, the court held that under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, and its enabling legislation, 9 U.S.C. S. § 201 et seq., the court had jurisdiction over the matter because the subject matter of the litigation related to an arbitration agreement. Further, although some of the defendants were not signatories of the seaman's employment contract, which included the arbitration clause, since the arbitration agreement could have conceivably affected the outcome of the case, the agreement related to the seaman's suit. Moreover, any inquiry into the enforceability of the arbitration agreement was barred by res judicata since the enforceability of the agreement was determined in the related action. As to the motion to dismiss, the court held that it could not compel arbitration on the ground of res judicata against defendants in the instant which were not defendants in the related action (non-signatories). However, the arbitration clause was applicable to the non-signatories under the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

OUTCOME: The seaman's motion to remand was denied. Defendants' motion to compel arbitration as to the non-signatories was granted. Defendants' motion to stay the claims against the insurer was granted. The seaman's motion to sever was denied.