Opinion ID: 77119
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Written Agreement Requirement in the FAA

Text: 37 The plaintiffs first argue that the DRP is not an agreement in writing for purposes of FAA enforcement because it is not signed by both parties. We reject this argument because while the FAA requires that the arbitration agreement be in writing, it does not require that it be signed by the parties. 38 We begin with § 2 of the FAA, which provides that [a] written provision to arbitrate shall be enforceable, as follows: 39 A written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction, or the refusal to perform the whole or any part thereof, or an agreement in writing to submit to arbitration an existing controversy arising out of such a contract, transaction, or refusal, shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. 40 9 U.S.C. § 2 (emphasis added). Similarly, the FAA's enforcement sections require a court to stay a proceeding where the issue in the proceeding is referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for such arbitration, 9 U.S.C. § 3 (emphasis added), 7 and provide for a party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of another to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration to petition a district court for an order directing that arbitration proceed, 9 U.S.C. § 4 (emphasis added). 8 The FAA thus uses the statutory language of [a] written provision in a contract, agreement in writing, and written agreement, which we collectively refer to as the written agreement requirement. 9 41 We readily conclude that no signature is needed to satisfy the FAA's written agreement requirement. First, the plain language of § 2 requires that the arbitration provision be written. It does not, however, require that the agreement to arbitrate be signed by either party; nor does any other provision of the FAA. As the Tenth Circuit has explained, Decisions under the Federal Arbitration Act . . . have held it not necessary that there be a simple integrated writing or that a party sign the writing containing the arbitration clause. All that is required is that the arbitration provision be in writing. Medical Dev. Corp. v. Indus. Molding Corp., 479 F.2d 345, 348 (10th Cir.1973) (citations omitted); see also Durkin v. Cigna Property & Cas. Corp., 942 F.Supp. 481, 487 (D.Kan.1996) (The contract need not be written; rather, for arbitration of future disputes, section 2 requires `[a] written provision' in `a contract.'). 42 Second, the overwhelming weight of authority supports the view that no signature is required to meet the FAA's written requirement. See, e.g., Med. Dev. Corp., 479 F.2d at 348; David L. Threlkeld & Co. v. Metallgesellschaft Ltd., 923 F.2d 245, 250 (2d Cir.1991) (holding that Vermont statute requiring that arbitration agreement be signed was preempted by the FAA); Genesco, Inc. v. Kakiuchi & Co., 815 F.2d 840, 846 (2d Cir.1987) (stating that while the [FAA] requires a writing, it does not require that the writing be signed by the parties); Valero Ref., Inc. v. M/T Lauberhorn, 813 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir.1987) (It is established that a party may be bound by an agreement to arbitrate even in the absence of his signature.); Linea Navira De Cabotaje, C.A. v. Mar Caribe De Navegacion, C.A., 169 F.Supp.2d 1341, 1346 (M.D.Fla.2001) (While an agreement to arbitrate must be in writing, there is no requirement that the writing be signed.); Todd Habermann Constr., Inc. v. Epstein, 70 F.Supp.2d 1170, 1174-75 (D.Colo.1999) (same); see also Tinder v. Pinkerton Sec., 305 F.3d 728 (7th Cir.2002) (enforcing arbitration agreement unilaterally promulgated by employer even though employee never signed it without discussing written agreement requirement); May v. Higbee Co., 372 F.3d 757, 764 (5th Cir.2004) (same). Indeed, this Court has found no decision to the contrary. 43 Here, the DRP is indisputably in writing. Although the employees' acceptance was by continuing their employment and was not in writing, all material terms — including the manner of acceptance — were set forth in the written DRP. The DRP stated that it was a contract and constituted the entire agreement between the employee and Gulfstream as to covered claims. 10 Nothing in the FAA suggests that a written provision must be signed to be enforceable. Accordingly, we conclude that the DRP is a written agreement to arbitrate for purposes of the FAA.