agreement may compel a signatory to that agreement to arbitrate based on, inter alia, equitable estoppel if the relevant state contract law so permits.' Consequently, prior decisions allowing non-signatories to compel arbitration based on federal common law, rather than state contract law ... have been modified to conform with Arthur Andersen"). 6 . See DK Joint Venture 1 v. Weyand, 649 F.3d 310, 314 (5th Cir.2011) ("Where there are no differences between the relevant substantive laws ..., there is no conflict, and a court need not undertake a choice of law analysis." (alteration in original) (quoting R.R. Mgmt. Co. v. CFS La. Midstream Co., 428 F.3d 214, 222 (5th Cir.2005))); see also Regions Bank v. Weber, 2010-1169, pp. 7-8 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/15/10); 53 So.3d 1284, 1289-90 (<HOLDING>); Lakeland Anesthesia, Inc. v. United
holding that rookerfeldman precludes jurisdiction over a federal lawsuit to compel arbitration under the federal arbitration act because the action was inextricably intertwined with the plaintiffs failed statelaw action to compel arbitration under the louisiana arbitration act holding that courts adopt statutes interpretation that is supported by statutes plain language if statute is unambiguous unless such interpretation would lead to absurd results recognizing a reliance on federal jurisprudence for the interpretation of louisianas arbitration statutes recognizing the importance of uniformity in admiralty jurisprudence recognizing that the csa is patterned after the federal act and relying on federal interpretation to the extent that the statutes are similar