Rollins, Inc. v. Cynthia Garrett

Eleventh Circuit

Rollins, Inc. v. Cynthia Garrett

176 F. App'x 968

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedApril 19, 2006

Docket05-14127; D.C. Docket 05-00671-CV-ORL-19-KRS

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 176 F. App'x 968 (Rollins, Inc. v. Cynthia Garrett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rollins, Inc. v. Cynthia Garrett, 176 F. App'x 968 (11th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

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 Or-kin. 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, 123 S.Ct. 2402, 156 L.Ed.2d 414 (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 *969 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 Or-kin. 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, 123 S.Ct. 2402, 156 L.Ed.2d 414 (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 *969 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 F. App'x 968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rollins-inc-v-cynthia-garrett-ca11-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack