Andre Wilson v. Carnival Corporation

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-10122
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
ANDRE DENHARIO WILSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CARNIVAL CORPORATION,
d.b.a. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-22492-RNS
USCA11 Case: 23-10122 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 04/04/2024 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-10122
____________________
Before G RANT, L AGOA, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Andre Denhario Wilson asserted claims under Panama law
against his employer, Carnival Corporation, after suffering a
workplace injury. Pursuant to his employment contract, Wilson’s
claims were resolved in an arbitration proceeding in Panama under
the Panama Convention.1 Concluding that Wilson’s personal
injury claims were time-barred, the arbitrator found in favor of
Carnival. Wilson filed an action in the Southern District of Florida
challenging that decision and seeking to vacate the arbitral award.
Carnival moved to dismiss Wilson’s claims, which the district court
granted after concluding that it lacked the power to vacate the
arbitral award. Wilson appeals, arguing that the district court had
jurisdiction to vacate the award, and that dismissing his case denies
him equal protection of the right of access to courts.
1 While Wilson originally argued that the foreign arbitration proceedings were
governed by the New York Convention, the district court construed it as being
governed by the Panama Convention because both parties’ home countries
have ratified the Panama Convention. See 9 U.S.C. § 305; see also Técnicas
Reunidas de Talara S.A.C. v. SSK Ingeniería y Construcción S.A.C., 40 F.4th 1339,
1344 (11th Cir. 2022). Wilson does not seem to contest that construction on
appeal. And even if he did, the result would be the same as the enforcement
and recognition provisions of the Panama Convention “are ‘substantively
identical’ to those in the New York Convention.” Corporación AIC, SA v.
Hidroeléctrica Santa Rita S.A., 66 F.4th 876, 889 (11th Cir. 2023) (en banc)
(quotation omitted).
USCA11 Case: 23-10122 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 04/04/2024 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

23-10122 Opinion of the Court 3
We review a district court’s ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
to dismiss de novo, “accepting the allegations in the complaint as
true and construing them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff.” Hill v. White, 321 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003). A
complaint properly states a claim if the factual allegations, taken as
true, “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” McCullough v.
Finley, 907 F.3d 1324, 1333 (11th Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted).
This Court has held that under the New York Convention,
which has “substantively identical” enforcement and recognition
provisions as the Panama Convention, “only courts in the primary
jurisdiction can vacate an arbitral award.” Corporación AIC, SA v.
Hidroeléctrica Santa Rita S.A., 66 F.4th 876, 883, 889 (11th Cir. 2023)
(en banc) (quotation omitted). Primary jurisdiction refers to the
“country which is the legal seat of the arbitration (or whose law
governs the conduct of the arbitration).” Id. at 883. Because the
district court in this case does not sit in Panama, the legal seat of
the arbitration, it did not have primary jurisdiction and could not
vacate Wilson’s arbitral award.
This conclusion does not deny Wilson of his right to equal
protection. It is well settled that agreements to arbitrate will be
enforced notwithstanding the contractual relinquishment of the
right of access to courts. See Caley v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 428
F.3d 1359, 1371 (11th Cir. 2005). By entering into a valid
employment contract with an arbitration agreement, Wilson
voluntarily agreed to resolve his claims before an arbitral forum,
limiting his right of access to courts. See id. at 1371–72.
USCA11 Case: 23-10122 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 04/04/2024 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-10122
* * *
Because the district court did not have primary jurisdiction,
it lacked the power to vacate Wilson’s arbitral award. Accordingly,
it properly dismissed Wilson’s claims. We AFFRIM.
USCA11 Case: 23-10122 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 04/04/2024 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --