Rollins, Inc. v. Cynthia Garrett , 176 F. App'x 968 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                                                       [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FILED
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    APR 19, 2006
    No. 05-14127                        THOMAS K. KAHN
    ________________________                      CLERK
    D. C. Docket No. 05-00671-CV-ORL-19-KRS
    ROLLINS, INC.,
    ORKIN, INC.,
    f.k.a. Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc.,
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    versus
    CYNTHIA GARRETT,
    on behalf of herself and all those similarly
    situated,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    _________________________
    (April 19, 2006)
    Before WILSON, KRAVITCH and REAVLEY*, Circuit Judges.
    _______________________
    *Honorable Thomas Reavley, United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by
    designation.
    PER CURIAM:
    Rollins, Inc. and Orkin, Inc. (collectively, “Orkin”) appeal from the district
    court’s order denying their motion to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration
    award permits class arbitration of disputes arising out of the contract for termite
    services that Cynthia Garrett entered into with Orkin. We have jurisdiction
    pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     to review the district court’s final order refusing to
    vacate the award. See Brown v. Rauscher Pierce Refsnes, Inc., 
    994 F.2d 775
     (11th
    Cir. 1993) (reviewing an order denying a motion to vacate an arbitration award).
    For the reasons set forth in the district court’s order, we affirm. When a
    contract is silent as to whether it prohibits class arbitration, the arbitrator, rather
    than the court, must resolve the issue as a matter of state law. Green Tree Fin.
    Corp. v. Bazzle, 
    539 U.S. 444
    , 447, 455 (2003). Under Florida law, a consumer
    contract that prohibits class arbitration is unconscionable because it “preclude[s]
    the possibility that a group of its customers might join together to seek relief that
    would be impractical for any of them to obtain alone.” Powertel, Inc. v. Bexley,
    
    743 So. 2d 570
    , 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Accordingly, the arbitrators did not
    exceed their power by interpreting the contract to allow class arbitration, see 
    9 U.S.C. § 10
    (a)(4), nor did the arbitration award violate public policy.
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-14127; D.C. Docket 05-00671-CV-ORL-19-KRS

Citation Numbers: 176 F. App'x 968

Judges: Kravitch, Per Curiam, Reavley, Wilson

Filed Date: 4/19/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/2/2023