Case: 14-10856 Date Filed: 03/27/2015 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-10856
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-22988-WJZ
FELIX ARTURO LOAYZA WONG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CARNIVAL CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(March 27, 2015)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Felix Wong appeals an order that compelled him to arbitrate his employment
dispute with Carnival Corporation. We affirm.
Case: 14-10856 Date Filed: 03/27/2015 Page: 2 of 3
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 “rigorously enforce
arbitration agreements according to their terms,” 133 S. Ct. at 2309. Italian Colors
in no way abrogates our precedent in Lindo that a seaman cannot raise a defense of
public policy at the “arbitration-enforcement stage.” Lindo, 652 F.3d at 1282.
Second, Wong argues that we are bound by the contrary rule applied in Thomas v.
Carnival Corp., 573 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir. 2009), but we explained in Lindo that
2
Case: 14-10856 Date Filed: 03/27/2015 Page: 3 of 3
Thomas is inconsistent with an earlier precedent, Bautista v. Star Cruises, 396 F.3d
1289 (11th Cir. 2005). Lindo, 652 F.3d at 1277–78. We are bound by Bautista and
Lindo.
We AFFIRM the order that compelled Wong to arbitrate his employment
dispute with Carnival.
3