an application to compel arbitration only if it is “made under Section 171.021 [of the TAA]....” The TAA does not authorize an interlocutory appeal when the subject arbitration agreement is governed by Colorado law or the UAA. Therefore, J.D. Edwards is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, without hearing oral argument, we conditionally grant the writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to order that Doskocil’s fraudulent inducement claim proceed to arbitration. Our writ will issue only if the trial court fails to do so. 1 . Doskocil also sued Grant Thornton L.L.P., but that company is not a party to this original proceeding. 2 . 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. 3 . In re FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d 749, 753 (Tex.2001). 4 . Id ., 514 U.S. 52, 64, 115 S.Ct. 1212, 131 L.Ed.2d 76 (1995) (<HOLDING>). 28 . 9 U.S.C. § 2. 29 . Tex Civ. Prac. &
holding that tort law and the law of punitive damages are not controlled by the contract choice of law provision holding that new york law did not preclude an arbitrators award of punitive damages despite a new york choice of law provision because there was no indication in the contract that the parties intended to limit their remedies in arbitration holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york holding that the implied consent to new york law manifest in the parties briefs was sufficient to establish choice of law