Yuce v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
Filing
1
NOTICE OF REMOVAL Filing fee $ 350.00 receipt number 113C-3671849, filed by Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C)(Ginsberg, Randy) (Entered: 04/12/2011)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO:_________________________
ISMAIL YUCE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.,
Defendant.
________________________________________/
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Defendant, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., (“RCCL”),
by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby files
this,
§1441,
its
Notice
of
et
seq.,
and
Removal,
9
pursuant
U.S.C.
§202,
to
28
U.S.C.
et
seq.,
and
respectfully states as follows:
1.
This is an action by ISMAIL YUCE (“Plaintiff”),
a seaman from Turkey and former employee of RCCL1, who
alleges he suffered an injury during the course of his
employment aboard the Brilliance of the Seas during May
2010.
1
Plaintiff has named Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd (“RCCL”)., as Defendant; however, the operator of the vessel is/was RCL (UK) Ltd., a
subsidiary of RCCL. For the purposes of this Notice of Removal, Defendant will stipulate that Plaintiff has named the proper Defendant.
CASE NO. _______________________
2.
At all times material to Plaintiff’s Complaint,
the terms of Plaintiff’s employment were governed by a
Sign
on
parties.
Employment
Agreement
(“SOEA”)
between
the
A copy of the applicable SOEA is attached
hereto as Exhibit “A.”
3.
The
SOEA
also
incorporates
a
Collective
Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) attached hereto as Exhibit
“B.”
4.
The
CBA
at
Article
35(1),
provides,
pertinent part, as follows:
…All grievances and any other dispute
whatsoever,
whether
in
contract,
regulatory,
tort,
or
otherwise
relating to or in any way connected
with the Seafarer’s service for the
Owner/Company
under
the
present
Agreement, including but not limited
to
claims
for
personal
injury/disability or death, no matter
how described, pleaded, or styled, and
whether
asserted
against
the
Owner/Company, Master, Employer, Ship
Owner, vessel or vessel operator,
shall be referred to an resolved
exclusively
by
mandatory
binding
arbitration pursuant to the United
Nations Conventions on Recognition and
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards
(New York 1958), 21 U.S.T. 2517, 300
UN.T.S. (“The Convention”).
2
in
CASE NO. _______________________
5.
agreed
By signing the SOEA, Plaintiff acknowledged and
to
be
bound
by
its
terms
and
conditions
including those incorporated by referenced within the
CBA.
6.
The
SOEA
and
incorporated
CBA
constitute
an
arbitration agreement falling under the Convention on
the
Recognition
and
Enforcement
of
Foreign
Arbitral
Awards (the “Convention”).
7.
9 U.S.C. §205 states:
Where the subject matter on an action or
proceeding pending in a State court
relates to an arbitration agreement or
award falling under the Convention, the
defendant or the defendants may, at any
time before the trial thereof, remove
such
action
or
proceedings
to
the
district court of the United States for
the district and division embracing the
place where the action or proceeding is
pending.
8.
the
Accordingly this suit is an action over which
United
States
District
Court
has
original
jurisdiction under the provisions of 9 U.S.C. § 202 et.
seq., and one that may be removed to federal court
under the provisions of 9 U.S.C. § 205, in that it is
3
CASE NO. _______________________
an action arising under the laws of the United States
and relating to an arbitration agreement falling under
the Convention.
9.
On or about February 15, 2011, Plaintiff served
RCCL with a Complaint in state court in the Eleventh
Circuit of Miami-Dade County, Florida, Ismail Yuce v.
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., Case No. 11-4376-CA-25. A
copy of the Complaint and all other pleadings, process,
and orders in this case are attached hereto as Exhibit
“C,” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1446(a).
10. This suit is an action of which this court has
original jurisdiction under the provision of 9 U.S.C. §
202 et. seq., and one that may be removed to this court
under the provisions of 9 U.S.C. § 205, in that it is
an action arising under the laws of the United States
and relating to an arbitration agreement falling under
the Convention. The grounds for removal are as follows:
a)
There has been no trial of the state court
action.
4
CASE NO. _______________________
b)
Defendant
ISMAIL
RCL
is
YUCE
a
is
a
foreign
seaman
from
corporation,
Turkey.
and
the
Brilliance of the Seas is a vessel registered in the
Bahamas.
c)
The
underlying
Sign
on
Employment
Agreement and CBA requires arbitration as all possible
venues
for
the
arbitration
are
signatories
to
the
Convention.
d)
Defendant
RCCL
stipulates
to
the
application of United States law in arbitration.
e)
Because the Agreement is between a foreign
corporation
and
a
foreign
seaman
and
because
the
Agreement provides for arbitration, this dispute falls
under the provisions of the Convention. See 9 U.S.C.
§202 et. seq.
11. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction over
this action, and this case is removed to the United
States
District
Court,
Southern
pursuant to U.S.C. § 205.
5
District
of
Florida
CASE NO. _______________________
12. RCCL files and presents herewith the sum of
$350.00 as required by 28 U.S.C. §1446.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.,
moves
this
court
for
an
order
that
the
action
now
pending against it in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in
and for Miami-Dade County, described above, be removed
to this Court and proceed therein.
Respectfully submitted,
ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.
1050 Caribbean Way
Miami, Florida 33132
(305) 539-6000 Tel.
(305) 539-8101 Fax
By:_/s/ RANDY S. GINSBERG
RANDY S. GINSBERG
Fla. Bar No.: 185485
6
CASE NO. _______________________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of
the foregoing was served U.S. Mail on April 12, 2011
to: Peter P. Sotolongo, 201 South Biscayne Blvd. Miami,
Florida 33131.
By:_/s/ RANDY S. GINSBERG
RANDY S. GINSBERG
Fla. Bar No.: 185485
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?