(CN) - A Canadian dancer whose toes were amputated after an accident aboard the cruise ship where he was working must arbitrate his claims, a federal judge ruled. Anthony Yuzwa, a graduate of the Canadian College of Performing Arts, worked for the Burlington School of Dance, appeared on Canadian television and had entertained passengers aboard cruise lines traveling the world over. While performing on the M/V Oosterdam in March 2012, however, a stage lift allegedly collapsed and crushed his right foot, resulting in the amputation of two of his toes and parts of others. Yuzwa filed a federal complaint against the owners of the Dutch ship in Los Angeles, seeking damages under maritime law from Stiletto Entertainment, Stiletto Television and HAL Maritime, which he improperly identified in his complaint as Holland America Line. Maritime or admiralty law requires ship owners to provide free medical care, including long-term care, for seamen injured while in the ship's service. But HAL Maritime argued that the Seagoing Employment Agreement (SEA) Yuzwa signed requires him to arbitrate his claims in his native Canada. The court accepted HAL's subsequent offer to stipulate to arbitration in Los Angeles with application of U.S. maritime law. "In light of defendant's representations to the court and plaintiff, the court finds it appropriate to compel arbitration of all of plaintiff's claims, under U.S. law, in Los Angeles," U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder wrote. "Referring this matter to arbitration in the United States, under U.S. law, best harmonizes the 'emphatic' policy favoring arbitration with Congress' special solicitude for seamen as a protected class," she added. Yuzwa had argued that it is impossible to decide arbitration at this stage of the proceedings, considering only one employer can be named as a defendant under his Jones Act claim, and that neither have been identified as such. Snyder, however, did not see that as an obstacle. "What plaintiff appears to be contending is that enforcing arbitration would impermissibly waive his right to a jury trial of his Jones Act claims, whether on the issue of co-employment or more generally," she wrote. "An agreement to arbitrate his claims necessarily effectuates a waiver of plaintiff's rights to a jury trial; this is not a bar to arbitration in general of Jones Act claim in particular." She added that, "despite plaintiff's contention that HAL and the Stiletto defendants are plaintiff's co-employers, the court may still order plaintiff to arbitrate his claims without deciding who is plaintiff's employer for purposes of the Jones Act. It is true, as plaintiff contends, there can only be one Jones Act employer. However, it is not essential that a jury, rather than a court, decide who plaintiff's Jones Act employer is." The court will retain jurisdiction to enforce any award that could derive from arbitration.
↧