Michael D. Castro v. Tri Marine Fish Company LLC and others

At a glance

Parties

Michael D. Castro v. Tri Marine Fish Company LLC, Tri Marine Management Company LLC, Cape Mendocino Fishing LP, Cape Mendocino Fishing LLC and Does 1–20

Case no.

Ninth Circuit No. 17-35703 (D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00008-RSL)

Court

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Senior District Judge Robert S. Lasnik)

Treaty

New York Convention (Arts. I(1), V); Convention Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 201–08

Panel

Circuit Judges M. Margaret McKeown (opinion) and Michelle T. Friedland; District Judge Susan R. Bolton (sitting by designation)

Underlying award(s)

One-page order of maritime voluntary arbitrator Gregorio Biares (Philippines), which approved a "Walk In Settlement" and dismissed the "case" with prejudice

Sector

Maritime employment; commercial fishing

Outcome

Reversed in part, vacated in part and remanded (27 February 2019). The Philippine order is not a foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention.

Amount

The settlement gave Castro a USD 5,000 advance plus USD 16,160. Tri Marine bears the costs of the appeal.

The dispute

Michael Castro is a Philippine citizen. He worked as a deck hand on Tri Marine's fishing vessel F/V Captain Vincent Gann and injured his knee on board on 30 July 2013. His employment agreement, an advance-payment receipt and a later release all provided for arbitration in American Samoa. Castro settled his claims with Tri Marine's agent in Manila. He was then taken to the lobby of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board, where arbitrator Gregorio Biares signed an order approving the settlement and dismissing the "case" with prejudice. When his surgery turned out to have failed, Castro sued in Washington state court. Tri Marine removed the case to federal court under the New York Convention. The district court confirmed the order as a foreign arbitral award and dismissed the suit. On appeal, Castro argued that the order was not an arbitral award.

Key holdings

1. Whether a document is an 'arbitral award' is a threshold question that the court reviews de novo. The Convention, the Convention Act and the FAA do not define the term, so the court used its common meaning and the definitions in the ALI Restatement (Third), Tentative Draft No. 2, and looked to the essence of the order rather than its label. pp. 9–11
2. The order is not an arbitral award. The parties had fully settled before they met the arbitrator, so there was no outstanding dispute to arbitrate. A 'difference' between the parties is a precondition of an award under the Convention. pp. 11–12
3. The lobby meeting ignored the parties' three agreements to arbitrate in American Samoa, and Castro did not waive them. It also departed from Philippine voluntary arbitration procedure: there was no submission agreement, no defined issues, no initial conference and no pleadings. pp. 12–13
4. The order is not a consent award either. Consent awards require the settlement to be reached while the arbitration is pending, after the tribunal is constituted. Here the parties settled first and only then went to an arbitrator. Tri Marine may still seek to enforce the release as a contract. pp. 13–15
5. The district court erred in proceeding summarily and resolving disputed facts, including Castro's coercion defense, in Tri Marine's favour. The confirmation order is vacated in full, including the ruling on the validity of the seaman's release. The case is remanded for the district court to assess removal jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 205 and, as appropriate, venue and defenses to enforcement. Tri Marine bears the costs of the appeal. pp. 16–17

Procedural history

1. 30 July 2013Castro injures his knee aboard the vessel.
2. Castro settles his claims. Arbitrator Gregorio Biares signs an order in Manila approving the settlement and dismissing the "case" with prejudice (the date is not stated in the opinion).
3. Castro sues in Washington state court. Tri Marine removes the case to federal court. The W.D. Washington court denies remand, confirms the order and dismisses the case.
4. 8 November 2018Appeal argued and submitted in Seattle.
5. 27 February 2019The Ninth Circuit reverses in part, vacates in part and remands.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• M. Margaret McKeown Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (authored opinion)
• Michelle T. Friedland Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Susan R. Bolton Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (District Judge, D. Arizona, sitting by designation)

For the claimant

Banning LLP · Law Offices of John W. Merriam

For the respondent

Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt P.C.

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• New York Convention
• definition of arbitral award
• consent award
• settlement agreement
• seaman's release
• Philippines
• American Samoa
• National Conciliation and Mediation Board
• Convention Act
• 9 U.S.C. § 205 removal
• Jones Act
• maritime injury
• waiver of arbitration agreement
• coercion defense
• Restatement of International Commercial Arbitration
• Ninth Circuit

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.