Sherwood v. Marquette Transportation Company, LLC et al, No. 3:2008cv00849 - Document 22 (S.D. Ill. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION, denying 7 MOTION to Compel Arbitration MOTION to Stay Proceedings filed by Bluegrass Marine, LLC, Marquette Transportation Company, LLC. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 3/31/09. (dka, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS MICHAEL L. SHERWOOD, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 08-cv-849-JPG MARQUETTE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, LLC, and BLUEGRASS MARINE, LLC, Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Defendants s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings (Doc. 7). Plaintiff has responded and Defendants have replied. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion. BACKGROUND According to the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff was employed by Defendants to work as a deckhand and member of the crew of the M/V Justin Paul Exkstein, a vessel in navigation on the Mississippi River. While performing his duties in service to the vessel, Plaintiff was seriously injured. Plaintiff filed a six-count complaint in this Court for damages recoverable under the Jones Act and for maintenance and cure under general maritime law. Defendants filed the instant Motion to Compel Arbitration, asserting that, as part of his contract of employment, Plaintiff had agreed to arbitrate any disputes arising out of his employment with Defendant, including any actions under the Jones Act. The agreement to arbitrate (Agreement) contained the following language: In consideration for Bluegrass considering your application and conditionally offering you employment, you and Bluegrass agree that if you are or become a resident of either Illinois or Missouri and/or you or Bluegrass bring an action in either Missouri or Illinois state or federal court relating to your recruitment, employment with termination of employment, or personal injury which is not covered by either Illinois or Missouri Workers Compensation laws, then the plaintiff in such action agrees to waive his or her right to a trial by jury, and further agrees that no demand, request or motion will be made for trial by jury, This program includes claims brought under the Jones Act. The Agreement goes on to specify, You and your employer agree that the option to arbitrate any dispute is governed by Illinois arbitration statutes if you either reside in Illinois or file suit in Illinois. Defendants now ask the Court to compel arbitration in accordance with Illinois law. ANALYSIS Congress has the undoubted authority to govern the employment relationships of workers engaged in interstate commerce, particularly, seamen. Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 120-21 (2001). In accordance with that authority, Congress, in adopting the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), specifically exempted contracts of employment of seamen from its general language requiring courts to give effect to agreements to arbitrate. 9 U.S.C. ยง 1. As a result, Defendants in this case would be unable to seek enforcement of the mandatary arbitration provision of Plaintiff s employment contract via the FAA. However, by specifying that Illinois arbitration statutes govern the contract, Defendants hope to take advantage of the fact that Illinois law does not contain a parallel exception for contracts of employment of seamen. The Illinois Uniform Arbitration Act provides that a provision in a written contract to submit to arbitration any controversy thereafter arising between the parties is valid, enforceable , and irrevocable. 710 ILCS 5/1. As Plaintiff had agreed, as part of the Agreement, that Illinois arbitration statutes would govern the option to arbitrate, Defendants insist the Court must compel arbitration. The question for this Court is whether it is bound to honor the choice of law provision of the Agreement. The Court concludes that it is not. 2 Normally, where a contract involving interstate commerce contains an arbitration clause, the FAA, rather than state arbitration statutes, applies. Bishop v. We Care Hair Development Corp., 738 N.E.2d 610 (2000). However, under most circumstances, where parties to a contract have agreed to arbitrate in accordance with state law, the FAA does not apply, even where interstate commerce is involved. Tortoriello v. Gerald Nissan of North Aurora, Inc., 882 N.E.2d 157, 168 (Ill App. Ct. 2008). That is because, in most instances, where . . . the parties have agreed to abide by state rules of arbitration, enforcing those rules according to the terms of the agreement is fully consistent with the goal of the FAA of favoring arbitration agreements. Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. Of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 479 (1989). However, by excepting contracts of employment of seamen from coverage under the FAA, Congress evinced a secondary goal of the FAA, that of protecting seamen from the binding effects of arbitration provisions when those provisions are tied to their contracts of employment. Thus, compelling arbitration of this contract of employment of a seaman in accordance with the arbitration law of Illinois would not be fully consistent with the goals of the FAA. In fact, it would stand[] as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Volt, 489 U.S. at 477. As such, the FAA preempts the Illinois Arbitration Act insofar as the latter requires a court to compel a seaman to arbitrate based on a provision in his contract for employment. Id. Accordingly, the Court finds that the FAA, rather than the Illinois Arbitration Act, governs this action, notwithstanding any agreement by the parties to the contrary. CONCLUSION Because the FAA expressly precludes giving binding effect to arbitration agreements contained in contracts for the employment of seamen, the Court DENIES Defendants s Motion 3 to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings (Doc. 7) IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: March 31, 2009 s/ J. Phil Gilbert J. PHIL GILBERT DISTRICT JUDGE 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
