that the arbitration provision in this case falls very much within the holding in Thomas. Accord Kovacs v. Carnival Corp., 2009 WL 4980277, Case No. 09-22630-CV-HUCK (S.D.Fla. Dec. 21, 2009) (remanding case because, inter alia, [there would be a prospective waiver of plaintiffs U.S. statutory remedies if the Court were] to compel arbitration of seaman’s Jones Act claim where Panamanian law would apply at arbitration); Pavon v. Carnival Corp., Case No. 09-22935-CV-LENARD (S.D.Fla. Jan. 20, 2010) (remanding seaman’s Jones Act claims in part because to arbitrate such claims would [prospectively waive Jones Act’s imposition of] strict liability on employers for the negligence of its employees); see also Sorica v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., Case No. 09-20917-HUCK (S.D.Fla. Aug. 4, 2009) (<HOLDING>) [.] The Court is not persuaded by the argument
holding that injured seamans loss of consortium claim under state law was preempted by jones act recognizing that a provision providing for arbitration under bermuda law in a bermuda forum of a jones act claim is void under the thomas analysis holding that the jones act does not preempt state law in applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens and thus state law governs holding that a usbased company was an employer under the jones act holding that joinder of a nonremovable jones act claim with a removable claim under general maritime law that is not separate and independent is not grounds for removal