Arnoldo José Robleto Orozco v. Trinity Ship Management, S.a.

* Pursuant to 5TH Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH Cir. R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-30865
ARNOLDO JOSÉ ROBLETO OROZCO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TRINITY SHIP MANAGEMENT, S.A.; HARBOR
SHIPPING & TRADING CO., S.A.; SUNRISE
SHIPPING AGENCY, INC.; GALINI MV, HER
ENGINES, APPAREL AND FURNISHINGS, IN REM
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(99-CV-2810-K)
May 15, 2001
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this admiralty case implicating personal injury to a
seaman, Plaintiff-Appellant Orozco, we are asked to reverse the
district court’s dismissal of Orozco’s complaint on the basis of a
forum selection and choice of law clause contained in his
Memorandum of Agreement (“the employment agreement”) for service on

-- 1 of 3 --

2
an oceangoing cargo vessel registered in Panama, owned by a
Panamanian corporation, and managed by a Panamanian corporation
with principal place of business in Piraeus, Greece. Orozco is a
citizen of Nicaragua who was injured on the vessel while welding.
He went ashore in Colombia where he was diagnosed with compound
fractures, and thereafter returned to his native Nicaragua.
Orozco’s employment agreement provides:
It is mutually agreed that all disputes
arising from this contract including illness
and injury claims will be determined by the
Piraeus Courts Greece, in accordance with the
existing Greek law.
The employment agreement is written in English, and the above-
quoted forum selection and choice of law clause appears immediately
above Orozco’s signature on that agreement. Orozco neither speaks
nor writes English, and signed the agreement without benefit of an
interpreter shortly after reporting aboard the vessel in New
Orleans.
On appeal, Orozco asserts the nullity of the subject clause on
grounds that, as a Spanish-only speaking and reading seaman
reporting aboard a vessel far from his native land and being
required to sign an employment agreement containing such a choice
of law and forum without benefit of an interpreter, under penalty
of being put ashore at the vessel’s next port of call, wherever
that might be, he was deprived of any possible bargaining power
that he might otherwise have had, and could not be charged with
notice of the subject clause, which might otherwise be implied as

-- 2 of 3 --

3
a matter of law by virtue of his signature on the agreement. He
also claims that being forced to litigate in Greece deprives him of
his “day in court” as a practical matter.
We cannot view Orozco’s arguments in a factual vacuum; but
neither can we consider this appeal in a legal vacuum. We must do
so in light of the considerable federal and state jurisprudence
affecting the issues implicated in this case. When we do, we
conclude that Orozco’s arguments are unavailing.
After considering the record on appeal and the facts and law
as ably presented by counsel in their respective briefs and oral
arguments, we are convinced that the district court’s dismissal
must be affirmed. The facial appeal of arguments of counsel for
Orozco —— especially those addressing the issue of notice —— to the
contrary notwithstanding, the legal precedents that control our
decision today bind Orozco to the provisions of the agreement he
signed, including without limitation the forum selection and choice
of law clause, irrespective of the geographical, fiscal, and
linguistic constraints under which he was laboring.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --