[D O NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FILED

F O R THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

APR 19, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

N o . 05-14127

CLERK

D . C. Docket No. 05-00671-CV-ORL-19-KRS

R O L L IN S , 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.

A p p e al from the United States District Court

fo r the Middle District of Florida

(A p ril 19, 2006)

B efo re WILSON, KRAVITCH and REAVLEY*, Circuit Judges.

*Honorable Thomas Reavley, United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by

designation.

P E R CURIAM: R o llin s , Inc. and Orkin, Inc. (collectively, "Orkin") appeal from the district co u rt's order denying their motion to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration aw ard permits class arbitration of disputes arising out of the contract for termite serv ices that Cynthia Garrett entered into with Orkin. We have jurisdiction p u rsu an t to 28U.S.C. § 1291 to review the district court's final order refusing to v acate the award. See Brown v. Rauscher Pierce Refsnes, Inc., 994 F.2d 775 (11th C ir . 1993) (reviewing an order denying a motion to vacate an arbitration award).

F o r the reasons set forth in the district court's order, we affirm. When a c o n tr ac t is silent as to whether it prohibits class arbitration, the arbitrator, rather th an the court, must resolve the issue as a matter of state law. Green Tree Fin.

C o rp . v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444, 447, 455 (2003). Under Florida law, a consumer co n tract that prohibits class arbitration is unconscionable because it "preclude[s] th e possibility that a group of its customers might join together to seek relief that w o u ld be impractical for any of them to obtain alone." Powertel, Inc. v. Bexley, 7 4 3 So. 2d 570, 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Accordingly, the arbitrators did not ex ceed 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.

A F F IR M E D .