green
Positive treatment
published
Quoted verbatim 1×
3.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Cited for
At page 615 a general choice-of-law clause within an arbitration provision does not trump the presumption that the FAA supplies the rules for arbitration.1 citing case
- Stone & Webster, Inc. v. Baker Process, Inc., 210 F. Supp. 2d 1177 (S.D. Cal. 2002).published (a general choice-of-law clause within an arbitration provision does not trump the presumption that the FAA supplies the rules for arbitration.)
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Milos SOVAK, M.D.; Biophysica, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CHUGAI PHARMACEUTICAL CO., a Corporation of the Empire of Japan; Cook Imaging Corporation, an Indiana Corporation, Defendants-Appellees
v.
CHUGAI PHARMACEUTICAL CO., a Corporation of the Empire of Japan; Cook Imaging Corporation, an Indiana Corporation, Defendants-Appellees
00-55298.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Apr 10, 2002.
Published opinion
289 F.3d 615
2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3075
2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 6568
2002 WL 531396
Lawrence E. Eden (argued), Lawrence R. Goerke, Encinitas, CA, for the plaintiffs-appellants., Dean T. Janis (argued), Jonathan S. Dabbieri, San Diego, CA; Edward W. Harris III (argued), Steven S. Shockley, Maggie L. Smith, Indianapolis, IN, for the defendants-appellees.
O'Scannlain, Paez, King.
Cited by 24 opinions | Published
Citer courts: S.D. California (1)
ORDER
The opinion filed February 19, 2002 (280 F.3d 1266) is hereby ordered amended as follows:
Slip Op. at 2702 [280 F.3d at 1271]: Delete the entire text of footnote 1 and replace with:
On appeal, Sovak contends that if federal law applies, the district court improperly ordered arbitration in Chicago, as opposed to the Southern District of California. Compare Cont’l Grain Co. v. Dant & Russell, 118 F.2d 967, 968-69 (9th Cir.1941) (holding that § 4 of the FAA limits a court to ordering arbitration within the district in which the suit was filed) with Dupuy-Busching Gen. Agency v. Ambassador Ins. Co., 524 F.2d 1275, 1276-78 (5th Cir.1975) (concluding that § 4 bars ordering arbitration in another judicial district only when the party seeking to compel arbitration filed the federal suit). Sovak failed to raise this issue in opposing Cook’s motion to compel arbitration. As such, we decline to address it. See, e.g., Animal Prot. Inst. of Am. v. Hodel, 860 F.2d 920, 927 (9th Cir.1988) (“Federal appellate courts generally do not consider issues first raised on appeal.”).
With this amendment, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for[*616] rehearing. Judges O’Scannlain and Paez have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Judge King recommended that the petition for rehearing en banc be denied.
The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35.
The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.