ARBITRATION AGREEMENT NOT ENFORCED BECAUSE THE CLAUSE WAS NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT.
GHEROGHE TUCA VERSUS OCEAN FREIGHTERS, LTD., ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-5019 SECTION "L" (3)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16174
April 4, 2006, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff seaman sued defendants, his employer and the owner of the vessel on which he was working when he allegedly sustained severe and permanent injuries, for negligence and unseaworthiness. Defendants removed the case pursuant to general maritime law and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 9 U.S.C.S. § 201 et seq. Plaintiff moved to remand.
OVERVIEW: In support of his motion, plaintiff argued that his claim fell under the Jones Act and therefore was not removable without another basis for jurisdiction. Plaintiff argued that defendants' use of the arbitration clause in an employment agreement was an impermissible attempt to invoke the court's jurisdiction using a federal defense. Plaintiff argued that his employment agreement only incorporated the terms and conditions governing employment and that the arbitration clause in question provided for arbitration between other parties, rather than to a seafarer whose employment contract incorporated provisions of the agreement. Although the arbitration "related to" plaintiff's claim and met other requirements of the Convention, the court agreed with plaintiff that the arbitration clause did not fall under the Convention and that defendant failed to satisfy the four-part Lim test. The arbitration clause was not incorporated into plaintiff's employment contract, and, accordingly, there was no agreement in writing to arbitrate the dispute. Thus, there was no basis of federal jurisdiction other than the Jones Act.
OUTCOME: The court granted plaintiff's motion to remand.
