Thomas v. Carnival Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an arbitration clause limited to “[a]ny and all disputes arising out of or in connection with this Agreement” was not retroactive and did not make arbitrable claims arising out of prior agreements
• noting that Panamanian law was the only possible governing law to be applied and choice of law is the important question
• noting that contrary holding would eviscerate “any U.S. statutorily-created causes of action”
• phrasing the second part of the consideration — possibility of application of U.S. law and subsequent review — in the conjunctive
• noting that enforcing the foreign choice-of-law and arbitration clauses in tandem “is exactly the sort [of result] that the Supreme Court has described as a prospective waiver of parties rights to pursue statutory remedies without the assurance of a ‘subsequent opportunity for review.’”
• “We will not invalidate choice clauses, however, simply because the remedies available in the contractually chosen forum are less favorable than those available in the courts of the United States.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).