(in adopting the holding of International Standard Electric Corp., stating that “[r]e-sorting to the courts of the nation supplying the substantive law for the dispute does nothing to enhance the underlying principles of international arbitration because, under the terms of the New York Convention itself, judicial review of such an award is extremely limited and extends only to procedural aspects of the determination”). The Agreements stipulated that substantive Venezuelan law would apply, but that the arbitration “shall be conducted in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association .... ” Hotel Mgmt. Agreement § 19.03(c). The procedural law can therefore be construed as being supplied by the United States. Cf. Coutinho, 2000 WL 435566, at *6 (<HOLDING>); see also Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Petersen,
holding that trial court properly denied motion to compel arbitration of claims for fraud and unfair and deceptive trade practices because arbitration clause in agreement only applied to indemnification claims and there were no other arbitration clauses in agreement holding that proposed invalidation of the entire arbitration agreement even if the court were convinced that the plaintiff could not afford to pay for the arbitration proceedings was unnecessarily radical because the court could instead simply nullify the fee provisions of the arbitration agreement and force the defendant employer to bear the expense of arbitration 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 the arbitrator was without jurisdiction to consider an issue which was not included in the written notice of arbitration and was added on the first day of the arbitration hearing holding that because arbitration was conducted in china pursuant to procedural rules of china international economic and trade arbitration commission the courts of china and not the district court was the competent authority under article vle of the convention