Opinion ID: 3043436
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Valid Written Arbitration Clause

Text: In the instant appeal, Navarette contests only the first jurisdictional prerequisite, namely, that the district court erred by compelling the parties to arbitrate because there was no valid enforceable written agreement to arbitrate. We disagree. Under the Convention, parties have an “agreement in writing” if there is “an arbitral clause in a contract or an arbitration agreement, signed by the 6 Case: 14-13324 Date Filed: 08/05/2015 Page: 7 of 10 parties or contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams.” Convention, Art. II(2). Here, Silversea supplied the district court with copies of the May 20 Contract and the Standard Terms signed by Navarette. Navarette does not dispute the veracity of his signatures. Rather, he counters that the Standard Terms document was not incorporated into the employment agreement. Navarette maintains that Article II(2) requires inclusion of an arbitration provision in a signed agreement or an exchange of letters or telegrams. But this argument fails to address the fact that Navarette separately signed the Standard Terms, which contained the arbitration provision. See Bautista, 396 F.3d at 1300 (rejecting plaintiffs’ contention that there was no agreement in writing to arbitrate based on the court’s conclusion that the crewmembers signed both the employment contract and the POEA Standard Terms and Conditions to be incorporated in the contract). Accordingly, we conclude that this documentation fulfills the jurisdictional prerequisite that the court be provided with an agreement to arbitrate signed by the parties.