Elvis Mueller Cristy v. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA, et al., No. 14-11241 (11th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-11241 Date Filed: 11/26/2014 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-11241 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:13-cv-61720-RNS ELVIS MUELLER CRISTY, Plaintiff – Appellant, versus MSC MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY SA., MSC CRUISES (USA), INC., MSC CROCIERE, S.A. Defendants – Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (November 26, 2014) Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and COX, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 14-11241 Date Filed: 11/26/2014 Page: 2 of 3 This case arises out of a number of injuries that Plaintiff, Elvis Cristy, allegedly suffered while employed by Defendants, MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA., MSC Cruises (USA), Inc., and MSC Crociere, S.A. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, and Plaintiff appealed. The Plaintiff presents two issues on appeal. First, Plaintiff contends that the arbitration agreement is void as against public policy. Second, Plaintiff contends that, in holding that Plaintiff may not raise a public policy defense at the motion to compel arbitration stage, the district court failed to follow Thomas v. Carnival Corp., 573 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir. 2009), and, in so doing, failed to follow the prior precedent rule. The district court properly rejected Plaintiff’s argument that the agreement is void as against public policy, holding, in a well-reasoned opinion, that “the litigant must assert the defense after the arbitration has concluded.” (Dist. Court Order, Doc. 23 at 3). In reaching this holding, the district court properly rejected the Plaintiff’s second contention—that the district court should have followed Thomas. As the district court properly recognized, (Dist. Court Order at 3), Thomas is inconsistent with our previous decision in Bautista v. Star Cruises, 396 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2005). 2 Case: 14-11241 Date Filed: 11/26/2014 Page: 3 of 3 For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s order compelling arbitration is affirmed. AFFIRMED 3