a point which is squarely debated by the parties. Defendants maintain that this matter must be referred to arbitration, consistent with the arbitration clause, because Port Erie has already voluntarily appeared in the arbitration proceeding, because Port Erie unilaterally submitted the question of venue for AAA determination, and because Port Erie failed to institute an action to stay arbitration within the statutory period allowed under New York State law. We think Defendants’ analysis misses the mark in certain respects. For one, the mere presence of a generic choice-of-law provision does not, by itself, evidence an intent by the parties to incorporate into the Operating Agreement New York rules of arbitration. See Roadway Package Sys., Inc. v. Kayser, 257 F.3d 287, 289 (3d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, Defendants’ argument that
holding that a generic choiceoflaw clause standing alone is insufficient to support a finding that contracting parties intended to opt out of the faas default regime holding that selfserving deposition testimony standing alone is insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment holding witnesss testimony identifying appellant is sufficient standing alone to support conviction holding that adverse inference alone insufficient to support a motion for summary judgment holding evidence insufficient to support finding of implied contract