Case: 14-12378 Date Filed: 11/12/2014 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-12378
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-20010-FAM
VITALIL PYSARENKO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CARNIVAL CORP.,
d.b.a. Carnival Cruise Lines,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(November 12, 2014)
Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-12378 Date Filed: 11/12/2014 Page: 2 of 3
Pysarenko, the plaintiff in this case, filed a complaint against Carnival
Corporation in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Pysarenko alleges that he worked as a karaoke host aboard Carnival’s ship, the
“Carnival Dream.” He alleges that, as a result of negligence by Carnival, he
injured his back carrying Karaoke equipment in the course of his duties on
November 30, 2010. He further alleges that Carnival failed to provide him with
reasonable medical care and denied him the benefit of maintenance and cure. After
removing the case to the Southern District of Florida, Carnival moved to dismiss
the action and compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause in the
employment contract between Pysarenko and Carnival. The district court granted
the motion. Pysarenko appeals, challenging that order.
Pysarenko presents five issues on appeal. First, Pysarenko argues that the
choice-of-law clause in the arbitration provisions in his employment contract is
void under 45 U.S.C. § 55. Second, he argues that the foreign-forum clause in the
arbitration provisions is void under 45 U.S.C. §§ 55 and 56. Third, he argues that
the entire arbitration clause is void under 45 U.S.C. §§ 55 and 56 and 46 U.S.C. §
30104. Fourth, he argues that the arbitration clause is void as against public policy
because the choice-of-law and choice-of-forum provisions operate in tandem as a
prospective waiver of Pysarenko’s rights to pursue his statutory remedies under
United States law. Fifth, he argues that the arbitration clause is void as against
2
Case: 14-12378 Date Filed: 11/12/2014 Page: 3 of 3
public policy for attempting to deprive Pysarenko of his Jones Act rights to pursue
his claims in state court and have them tried by a jury.
Pysarenko admits that his fourth and fifth arguments are contrary to the law
of this circuit, and seeks only to preserve them for further review. (Br. for
Appellant at 2). The district court, in a well-reasoned opinion, carefully considered
and properly rejected Pysarenko’s remaining arguments. (Order Granting Def.’s
Mot. to Compel Arbitration and Den. Pl.’s Mot. to Remand, Doc. 37 at 3, 5, 9–10).
We conclude that the court did not err. We affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3