contract contains a choice-of-law clause (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

contract contains a choice-of-law clause in California

8 California opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2026 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
Valencia v. Smythgreen
calctapp · 2010 · cited in 7 California opinions naming this issue, 2013–2026
2 sentences

2021But the FAA’s procedural provisions ( 9 U.S.C. §§ 3 , 4, 10, 11) do not apply unless 31 the contract contains a choice-of-law clause expressly incorporating them.” (Valencia v. Smyth (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 153, 173-174 (Valencia), citing Cable Connection, supra, 44 Cal.4th 1334 ; Cronus Investments, Inc. v. Concierge Services (2005) 35 Cal.4th 376 ; and Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394 .) These opinions “make[] clear that the question is not whether the parties adopted [California’s] procedural provisions: The state’s procedural statutes (§§ 1281.2, 1

2020The Jaman Parties do not argue the trial court abused its discretion in its application of Section 1281.2(c), only that the court erred in applying the section in the first place. 8 DISCUSSION A. The FAA Governs Whether the Agreement’s Arbitration Provision Should Be Enforced “In accordance with choice-of-law principles, the parties may limit the trial court’s authority to stay or deny arbitration under the CAA by adopting the more restrictive procedural provisions of the FAA.” (Valencia v. Smyth, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at 157 .) “[T]he FAA’s procedural provisions ( 9 U.S.C. §§ 3 , 4, 10, 11)

57
Cronus Investments, Inc. v. Concierge Servicesgreen
cal · 2005 · cited in 6 California opinions naming this issue, 2013–2026
2 sentences

2021But the FAA’s procedural provisions ( 9 U.S.C. §§ 3 , 4, 10, 11) do not apply unless 31 the contract contains a choice-of-law clause expressly incorporating them.” (Valencia v. Smyth (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 153, 173-174 (Valencia), citing Cable Connection, supra, 44 Cal.4th 1334 ; Cronus Investments, Inc. v. Concierge Services (2005) 35 Cal.4th 376 ; and Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394 .) These opinions “make[] clear that the question is not whether the parties adopted [California’s] procedural provisions: The state’s procedural statutes (§§ 1281.2, 1

2020“In accordance with choice-of-law principles, the parties may limit the trial court’s authority to stay or deny arbitration under the [California Arbitration Act] by adopting the more restrictive procedural provisions of the FAA.” (Valencia v. Smyth (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 153, 157 .) “[T]he FAA’s procedural provisions ( 9 U.S.C. §§ 3 , 4, 10, 11) do not apply unless the contract contains a choice-of-law clause expressly incorporating them.” (Id. at p. 174.) “The question, therefore, is whether the parties expressly incorporated the FAA’s procedural provisions into their agreements.” (Id. at p.

46
Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp.green
cal · 1996 · cited in 4 California opinions naming this issue, 2010–2021
2 sentences

2021But the FAA’s procedural provisions ( 9 U.S.C. §§ 3 , 4, 10, 11) do not apply unless 31 the contract contains a choice-of-law clause expressly incorporating them.” (Valencia v. Smyth (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 153, 173-174 (Valencia), citing Cable Connection, supra, 44 Cal.4th 1334 ; Cronus Investments, Inc. v. Concierge Services (2005) 35 Cal.4th 376 ; and Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394 .) These opinions “make[] clear that the question is not whether the parties adopted [California’s] procedural provisions: The state’s procedural statutes (§§ 1281.2, 1

2013Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 405-410 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 875 , 926 P.2d 1061 ]; Rosenthal , at pp. 402, 407-409 [FAA provision requiring jury trial to determine question regarding existence of arbitration agreement ( 9 U.S.C. § 4 ) does not apply in Cal. state courts; instead, CAA provision governs, which requires that determination be made in manner provided for hearing and deciding motions (Code Civ.

14
Cable Connection, Inc. v. DirecTV, Inc.green
cal · 2008 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 2013–2021
2 sentences

2021But the FAA’s procedural provisions ( 9 U.S.C. §§ 3 , 4, 10, 11) do not apply unless 31 the contract contains a choice-of-law clause expressly incorporating them.” (Valencia v. Smyth (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 153, 173-174 (Valencia), citing Cable Connection, supra, 44 Cal.4th 1334 ; Cronus Investments, Inc. v. Concierge Services (2005) 35 Cal.4th 376 ; and Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394 .) These opinions “make[] clear that the question is not whether the parties adopted [California’s] procedural provisions: The state’s procedural statutes (§§ 1281.2, 1

2021But the FAA’s procedural provisions ( 9 U.S.C. §§ 3 , 4, 10, 11) do not apply unless 31 the contract contains a choice-of-law clause expressly incorporating them.” (Valencia v. Smyth (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 153, 173-174 (Valencia), citing Cable Connection, supra, 44 Cal.4th 1334 ; Cronus Investments, Inc. v. Concierge Services (2005) 35 Cal.4th 376 ; and Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394 .) These opinions “make[] clear that the question is not whether the parties adopted [California’s] procedural provisions: The state’s procedural statutes (§§ 1281.2, 1

13
Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.green
scotus · 1989 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026
2 sentences

2026As the high court has said, ‘the FAA’s “substantive” provisions—§§ 1 and 2—are applicable in state as well as federal court . . . .’ ” (Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Safety National Casualty Corp. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 471, 478 , quoting Volt, supra, 489 U.S. at p. 477, fn. 6 .) But the FAA’s procedural provisions—which include 9 U.S.C. § 10— apply only to proceedings in federal court, unless the contract contains a choice-of-law clause expressly incorporating them.

2026(Judge v. Nijjar Realty, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 619, 630-631 ; see Cronus, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 394 ; Swissmex-Rapid S.A. de C.V. v. SP Systems, LLC (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 539, 544 ; Valencia v. Smyth (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 153, 173-174 (Valencia) [identifying the FAA’s “procedural provisions” as 9 U.S.C. §§ 3 , 4, 10, 11].) “ ‘[T]he FAA contains no express pre-emptive provision, nor does it reflect a congressional intent to occupy the entire field of arbitration.’ ” (Cronus, at p. 385, quoting Volt, supra, 489 U.S. at p. 477 ; Judge, at p. 630.) Thus, “ ‘[t]he procedural provisions of

11
Mave Enterprises, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.green
calctapp · 2013 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
2 sentences

2014But the FAA’s procedural provisions ... do not apply unless the contract contains a choice-of-law clause expressly incorporating them.” (’Valencia v. Smyth (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 153, 173-174 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.3d 180 ], citations omitted; see Have Enterprises, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1408, 1429 [ 162 Cal.Rptr.3d 671 ] [“the procedural provisions of the CAA” apply in California courts “absent a choice-of-law provision expressly mandating the application of the procedural law of another jurisdiction”].) The arbitration agreement in this case does not mention the FAA o

2014But the FAA’s procedural provisions ... do not apply unless the contract contains a choice-of-law clause expressly incorporating them.” (’Valencia v. Smyth (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 153, 173-174 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.3d 180 ], citations omitted; see Have Enterprises, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1408, 1429 [ 162 Cal.Rptr.3d 671 ] [“the procedural provisions of the CAA” apply in California courts “absent a choice-of-law provision expressly mandating the application of the procedural law of another jurisdiction”].) The arbitration agreement in this case does not mention the FAA o

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Swissmex-Rapid S.A. de C.V. v. SP Systems, LLC green
calctapp · 2012
1 sentence

2026(Judge v. Nijjar Realty, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 619, 630-631 ; see Cronus, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 394 ; Swissmex-Rapid S.A. de C.V. v. SP Systems, LLC (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 539, 544 ; Valencia v. Smyth (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 153, 173-174 (Valencia) [identifying the FAA’s “procedural provisions” as 9 U.S.C. §§ 3 , 4, 10, 11].) “ ‘[T]he FAA contains no express pre-emptive provision, nor does it reflect a congressional intent to occupy the entire field of arbitration.’ ” (Cronus, at p. 385, quoting Volt, supra, 489 U.S. at p. 477 ; Judge, at p. 630.) Thus, “ ‘[t]he procedural provisions of

12026–2026
L. A. Unified Sch. Dist. v. Safety Nat'l Cas. Corp. green
calctapp5d · 2017
1 sentence

2026As the high court has said, ‘the FAA’s “substantive” provisions—§§ 1 and 2—are applicable in state as well as federal court . . . .’ ” (Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Safety National Casualty Corp. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 471, 478 , quoting Volt, supra, 489 U.S. at p. 477, fn. 6 .) But the FAA’s procedural provisions—which include 9 U.S.C. § 10— apply only to proceedings in federal court, unless the contract contains a choice-of-law clause expressly incorporating them.

12026–2026
Judge v. Nijjar Realty, Inc. green
calctapp · 2014
1 sentence

2026(Judge v. Nijjar Realty, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 619, 630-631 ; see Cronus, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 394 ; Swissmex-Rapid S.A. de C.V. v. SP Systems, LLC (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 539, 544 ; Valencia v. Smyth (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 153, 173-174 (Valencia) [identifying the FAA’s “procedural provisions” as 9 U.S.C. §§ 3 , 4, 10, 11].) “ ‘[T]he FAA contains no express pre-emptive provision, nor does it reflect a congressional intent to occupy the entire field of arbitration.’ ” (Cronus, at p. 385, quoting Volt, supra, 489 U.S. at p. 477 ; Judge, at p. 630.) Thus, “ ‘[t]he procedural provisions of

12026–2026
Molecular Analytical Systems v. Ciphergen Biosystems, Inc. green
calctapp · 2010
1 sentence

2020(Thomas v. Westlake (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 605, 612 .) Section 1281.2, subdivision (c) “ ‘addresses the peculiar situation that arises when a controversy also affects claims by or against other parties not bound by the arbitration agreement.’ ” (Cronus, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 393 .) “When the trial court makes a discretionary decision under section 1281.2 [, subdivision] (c), the reviewing court will affirm unless an abuse of discretion is shown. . . . ‘The court’s discretion under section 1281.2, subdivision (c) does not come into play until it is ascertained that the subdivision applies.’ ”

12020–2020
Thomas v. Westlake green
calctapp · 2012
1 sentence

2020(Thomas v. Westlake (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 605, 612 .) Section 1281.2, subdivision (c) “ ‘addresses the peculiar situation that arises when a controversy also affects claims by or against other parties not bound by the arbitration agreement.’ ” (Cronus, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 393 .) “When the trial court makes a discretionary decision under section 1281.2 [, subdivision] (c), the reviewing court will affirm unless an abuse of discretion is shown. . . . ‘The court’s discretion under section 1281.2, subdivision (c) does not come into play until it is ascertained that the subdivision applies.’ ”

12020–2020

Statutes the citing opinions construe

USC § 9u.s.c.3 (7) USC § 9u.s.c.1 (5) USC § 9u.s.c.2 (5) USC § 9u.s.c.10 (4) USC § 9u.s.c.4 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 8 (2010–2026) WY 2 (2020–2024)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check