United States / 16 March 2012 / U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit / Aggarao (Philippines) v. MOL Ship Management Company Ltd. (Japan), Nissan Motor Car Carrier Company, Ltd., trading as Nissan Carrier Fleet (Japan), World Car Careers (Lebanon) / 10–2211
Country | United States |
Court | United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit |
Date | 16 March 2012 |
Parties | Aggarao (Philippines) v. MOL Ship Management Company Ltd. (Japan), Nissan Motor Car Carrier Company, Ltd., trading as Nissan Carrier Fleet (Japan), World Car Careers (Lebanon) |
Case number | 10–2211 |
Applicable NYC Provisions | V | II | V(2)(b) | II(3) |
Source |
675 F.3d 355, online: PACER |
Languages | English |
Summary | The Plaintiff, a citizen of the Philippines, entered into a Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (“POEA”) contract with Magsaysay Mitsui O.S.K., which was acting as agent for one of the Defendants. The contract contained an arbitration clause. Shortly after, the Plaintiff entered into another contract that incorporated the terms of a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) that was binding on the other two Defendants. The Plaintiff sustained severe injuries aboard the Defendants’ ship. On June 16, 2009, the Plaintiff initiated a civil action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On January 21, 2010, the Defendants moved, inter alia, to dismiss the Complaint for improper venue pursuant to the arbitration clause. On September 30, 2010, the District Court issued its Opinion, holding that the arbitration clause was enforceable. The Plaintiff appealed. It argued, inter alia, that there was never an agreement to arbitrate because the second contract and the CBA superseded the POEA Contract, and thus annulled the Arbitration Clause. It further argued, that arbitration of its statutory claims would contravene the public policy of the United States. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found the arbitration agreement enforceable and ordered the Plaintiff to arbitrate its claims against the Defendants. In so ruling, the Court noted that the arbitration agreement fell under Article II(3) NYC and Section 202 of the Federal Arbitration Act. The Court also retained jurisdiction, finding that it was consistent with Article V(2)(b) NYC to later decide the Plaintiff’s public policy objection to arbitration. |
see also : |
|
Attachment (1)
Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |