Asignacion v. Rickmers Genoa Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH & Cie KG

Filing 62

ORDER denying 26 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Reference: 13-607, 13-2409)(jrc, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LITO MARTINEZ ASIGNACION

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 13-0607 c/w 13-2409

RICKMERS GENOA SCHIFFAHRTS

SECTION: "A" (4)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 26) filed by Plaintiff
Lito Martinez Asignacion. Defendant Rickmers Genoa Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH & Cie KG
opposes the motion. The motion, set for hearing on October 23, 2013, is before the Court on the
briefs without oral argument.
Plaintiff, a citizen of The Republic of the Philippines (“the Philippines”), was employed
by Defendant, a German corporation, to work as a fitter in the engine room of the M/V
RICKMERS DALIAN, a vessel owned by Defendant. Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a
written employment contract that was executed by the Philippine government through the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (“POEA”).1 The employment contract
incorporates the Philippine government’s Standard Terms and Conditions Governing
Employment of Filipino Seafarers On Board Ocean-Going Vessels, which require that all
employment claims be resolved through arbitration in the Philippines, invoking Philippine law.
On or about October 26, 2010, the M/V RICKMERS DALIAN was in the Mississippi

1

Rec. Doc. 29-3 at 1-7.
1

River near New Orleans, Louisiana, when a condenser overflowed in the vessel's engine room,
causing Plaintiff to sustain severe burns. As a result, Plaintiff filed suit to recover for his
injuries. The litigation was stayed and the parties were ordered to arbitrate their claims in the
Philippines, pursuant to Plaintiff's employment contract. The dispute proceeded to arbitration
before the Department of Labor and Employment, National Conciliation of Mediation Board in
Manila. On February 15, 2013, the Philippine arbitral panel issued a decision entitling Plaintiff
to scheduled benefits based on his level of disability resulting in an award of $1,870.00.2
Subsequent to the issuance of the foreign arbitral award, the stay on proceedings was
lifted. On October 10, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec.
Doc. 26). In presenting this motion to the Court, Plaintiff states the following: "Lito Martinez
Asignacion respectfully moves the Court to issue Summary Judgment in his favor declaring that
the award of the Philippine arbitral panel in this case is void against the public policy of the
United States, shall not be enforced, and is hereby vacated."3 For the following reasons, this
motion is DENIED.
The United States and the Philippines are both signatory States of the New York
Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards ("the
Convention").4 "Among the Convention's provisions are jurisdictional grants giving the federal
district courts original and removal jurisdiction over cases related to arbitration agreements

2

Rec. Doc. 29-3 at 8-16.

3

Rec. Doc. 26.

4

9 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.
2

falling under the Convention."5 The Court has previously established that the international
arbitration agreement between the parties in this case falls under the Convention.6 Thus, the
Convention governs this Court's review of the award.
The Convention “mandates very different regimes for the review of arbitral awards (1) in
the [countries] in which, or under the law of which, the award was made, and (2) in other
[countries] where recognition and enforcement are sought.”7 "Under the Convention, 'the
country in which, or under the [arbitration] law of which, [an] award was made' is said to have
primary jurisdiction over the arbitration award."8 All other signatory States have secondary
jurisdiction.9
Courts with primary jurisdiction over an award possess the exclusive authority to annul
or vacate the award.10 In secondary jurisdiction courts, the parties can only contest whether that
country should enforce the award.11

5

Acosta v. Master Maintenance and Const. Inc., 452 F.3d 373, 375 (5th Cir. 2006).

6

Rec. Doc. 23.

7

Karaha Bodas Co., L.L.C. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara,
335 F.3d 357, 364 (5th Cir. 2003) (quoting Yusuf Ahmed Alghanim & Sons v. Toys “R” Us, Inc.,
126 F.3d 15, 23 (2nd Cir. 1997)).
8

Id. (citing New York Convention, art. V(1)(e)).

9

Id.

10

Karaha Bodas Co., L.L.C. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi
Negara, 364 F.3d 274, 287 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Karaha Bodas Co., L.L.C. v. Perusahaan
Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 335 F.3d 357, 364 (5th Cir. 2003)).
11

Karaha Bodas Co., L.L.C. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi
Negara, 335 F.3d 357, 364 (5th Cir. 2003).
3

Since the award at issue was rendered in the Philippines, Philippine courts have primary
jurisdiction over the award. This Court, having secondary jurisdiction over the award, can only
consider whether to enforce the award in the United States. As such, this Court does not have
the proper jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff's motion to vacate the arbitral award. A motion to
this effect can only be brought in a Philippine court.
Further, an action to vacate an award made under the Convention is to be governed by
the domestic law of the arbitral forum.12 Such an action is not to be made under the
Convention.13 Plaintiff moves for the Court to vacate the award on public policy grounds, under
Article V(2) of the Convention. However, Article V provides the exclusive grounds for a court
to refuse to enforce an award - not grounds on which a court may vacate an award.14 Thus, a
motion to vacate the award in this case must be brought both in a Philippine court and under
Philippine law. These requirements are not met here.
The Court notes that currently pending in this matter is a Motion to Recognize and
Enforce Arbitral Award (Rec. Doc. 29) filed by Defendant. To the extent Plaintiff's arguments
made in the instant motion are reiterated in his opposition to Defendant's pending motion, those
arguments will be given due consideration in that context.

12

Karaha Bodas Co., L.L.C. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi
Negara, 364 F.3d 274, 308-09 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Yusuf Ahmed Alghanim & Sons v. Toys
"R" Us, Inc., 126 F.3d 15, 22 (2d Cir. 1997)).
13

Yusuf Ahmed Alghanim & Sons v. Toys "R" Us, Inc., 126 F.3d 15, 22 (2d Cir. 1997).

14

Gulf Petro Trading Co., Inc. v. Nigerian Nat. Petroleum Corp., 512 F.3d 742, 747 (5th
Cir. 2008) (citing Karaha Bodas Co., L.L.C. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas
Bumi Negara, 335 F.3d 357, 364 (5th Cir. 2003)).
4

Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 26) filed by
Plaintiff Lito Martinez Asignacion is hereby DENIED.
This 27th day of January 2014.

___________________________________
JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5