Hermawan v. SP Cruises Crewco Ltd. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 25-cv-26018-ALTMAN
PUTU YUDI HERMAWAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
SP CRUISES CREWCO LTD., et. al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND TO STATE COURT
The Defendants removed a state-court action to this Court, invoking federal-question
jurisdiction. Our Plaintiff now moves to remand the case to state court. After careful review, we
GRANT the motion.
T HE FACTS
In November 2025, our Plaintiff sued the Defendants in state court for “injuries sustained
while employed aboard Defendants’ vessel Azamara Onward.” State Court Complaint [ECF No. 1-3]
at 1; see also id. at 3 (“Plaintiff was hired to serve as a bar server aboard the vessel Azamara Onward.”).
In December 2025, the Defendants removed the action to this Court, explaining that they “will be
moving to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims under the Convention on the Recognition and
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the ‘New York Convention’).” Notice of Removal [ECF
No. 1] at 1 (citations omitted); see also 9 U.S.C. §§ 201–08.1 A week later, the Defendants filed a Motion
1 “In 1958, the United Nations Economic and Social Council adopted the [New York]
Convention.” Cosgun v. Seabourn Cruise Line Ltd. Inc., 666 F. Supp. 3d 1270, 1278 (S.D. Fla. 2023)
(Altman, J.); see also 21 U.S.T. 2517, 330 U.N.T.S. 3. “The New York Convention is a multilateral treaty
that addresses international arbitration.” GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp. v. Outokumpu
Stainless USA, LLC, 590 U.S. 432, 438 (2020). “In 1970, the United States acceded to the New York
Convention, and Congress enacted implementing legislation in Chapter 2 of the [Federal Arbitration
Case 1:25-cv-26018-RKA Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2026 Page 1 of 5

2
to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings [ECF No. 5]. In January 2026, however, our Plaintiff
moved to remand the case to state court, arguing that “[f]ederal question jurisdiction is lacking.”
Motion to Remand (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 14] at 2.
T HE L AW
“Section 1441(a), the general removal statute, permits the defendant or the defendants in a
state-court action over which the federal courts would have original jurisdiction to remove that action
to federal court.” Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, 587 U.S. 435, 438 (2019) (quotation marks
omitted). “[T]he statute provides two bases for remand: (1) a lack of subject matter jurisdiction that
can be raised at any time before final judgment or (2) a defect other than lack of subject matter
jurisdiction that must be raised within 30 days after filing of the notice of removal.” Wilson v. Hearos,
LLC, 128 F.4th 1254, 1260 (11th Cir. 2025). “Because removal is only permissible when [a] plaintiff’s
claim could have been filed in federal court originally, we must look to [the] plaintiff’s claim to
determine whether removal was appropriate.” Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir.
1994). Defendants “may not generally remove a case to federal court unless the plaintiff’s complaint
establishes that the case arises under federal law.” Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 207–08
(2004) (cleaned up). “[U]nless the face of a plaintiff’s complaint states a federal question, a defendant
may not remove a case to federal court . . . even though a possible defense might involve a federal
question.” Ervast v. Flexible Prods. Co., 346 F.3d 1007, 1012 (11th Cir. 2003).
A NALYSIS
In removing this case to federal court, the Defendants argue that the “Plaintiff had an
employment agreement . . . that incorporates the terms of the Norwegian Seafarers’ Union’s
Act]” (“FAA”). Id. at 439. Accordingly, “the FAA tells us which kinds of cases fall under the
Convention—and thus trigger the original jurisdiction of federal district courts.” Cosgun, 666 F. Supp.
3d at 1279–80; see also id. at 1280 (“[A]ll commercial arbitration agreements involving at least one foreign
party fall under the Convention.” (cleaned up)).
Case 1:25-cv-26018-RKA Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2026 Page 2 of 5

3
Collective Bargaining Agreement [(‘CBA’)] with Defendants,” which itself “contains an arbitration
provision that covers the claims raised here.” Notice of Removal at 3. The Defendants appended a
copy of that employment agreement (the “Agreement”) to their Notice of Removal. See Agreement
[ECF No. 1-1]. And that Agreement in fact specifies that its “terms and conditions . . . are in
accordance with and subject to the . . . [CBA],” “[i]ssued 01-07-2022.” Agreement at 1. But, as the
Plaintiff points out, “[t]he Notice of Removal . . . does not attach” the 2022 CBA “as an exhibit or
even refer to it,” but “instead attaches a different collective bargaining agreement”—a 2024 version of
the CBA, which “contains the arbitration provisions upon which [the] Defendants base removal.”
Mot. at 2 (emphasis added). In other words, our Plaintiff argues, the “Defendants’ Notice of Removal
and . . . motion to compel arbitration are improperly grounded on arbitration provisions incorporated
by a different employment contract for work aboard a different vessel, covering a different
employment period, with different terms and conditions of service.” Ibid. Our Plaintiff thus concludes
that “there is no basis for removal. . . because the arbitration provisions [the] Defendants seek to
enforce are inapplicable.” Ibid.; see also id. at 4 (“[T]he Azamara Onward employment contract does not
incorporate [the 2024] CBA . . . or otherwise reference it; the Azamara Onward Employment Contract
incorporates a different collective bargaining agreement which Defendants elected not to include in
their removal papers.”).
“[A]ll doubts about jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand to state court.” Univ. of
S. Alabama v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999). That “presumption in favor of
remand is necessary because if a federal court reaches the merits of a pending motion in a removed
case where subject matter jurisdiction may be lacking it deprives a state court of its right under the
Constitution to resolve controversies in its own courts.” Ibid. Here, the Plaintiff has credibly
challenged our subject-matter jurisdiction. See Mot. at 3 (“This case should be remanded to the Florida
circuit court where it was originally filed because no valid basis exists for compelling arbitration under
Case 1:25-cv-26018-RKA Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2026 Page 3 of 5

4
the New York Convention.”). Because a federal court is “powerless” to act without subject-matter
jurisdiction, we cannot ignore that challenge. Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F.3d 964, 975 (11th Cir.
2005) (quotation marks omitted).2
“A federal court not only has the power but also the obligation at any time to inquire into
jurisdiction whenever the possibility that jurisdiction does not exist arises.” Fitzgerald v. Seaboard Sys.
R.R., Inc., 760 F.2d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 1995). And we cannot “satisfy” ourselves of “our own
jurisdiction” here. Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237, 244 (1934). So, since “we strictly construe the right
to remove and apply a general presumption against the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such that all
uncertainties as to removal jurisdiction are to be resolved in favor of remand,” we must remand this
action to state court. Scimone v. Carnival Corp., 720 F.3d 876, 882 (11th Cir. 2013) (cleaned up); see also
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”).
C ONCLUSION
After careful review, therefore, we ORDER and ADJUDGE as follows:
1. 	The 	Plaintiff’s 	Motion 	to 	Remand 	[ECF 	No. 	14] 	is 	GRANTED. 	This 	action 	is
REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade
County, Florida.
2. 	All hearings and deadlines are TERMINATED, and all other pending motions—including
the Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings [ECF No. 5]—are
DENIED as MOOT.
2 The Plaintiff (it’s true) never makes clear whether the 2022 CBA incorporates the relevant
arbitration provision. In fact, he suggests that even the 2022 CBA may not have been binding. See
Mot. at 2 (arguing that the 2022 CBA “had already expired before Plaintiff was hired and before he
was injured”). But that’s of no moment here. What matters for our purposes is whether the Notice of
Removal establishes our federal-question jurisdiction. And, on the record before us, the Defendants
cannot rely on the New York Convention as a jurisdictional hook.
Case 1:25-cv-26018-RKA Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2026 Page 4 of 5

5
3. 	The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE the case.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on January 29, 2026.
_________________________________
ROY K. ALTMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record
Case 1:25-cv-26018-RKA Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2026 Page 5 of 5