out of the FAA default rules. Mastrobuono involved a dispute between a securities broker and two of its customers. Id. at 54, 115 S.Ct. 1212. The parties agreed to resolve any disputes by arbitration, but stipulated that “the entire agreement” would be governed by New York law. In holding that New York law did not govern the arbitration, the Court reasoned that the choice-of-law provision should be read, at most, to “include only New York’s substantive rights and obligations, and not the state’s allocation of power between alternative tribunals.” Id. at 60, 115 S.Ct. 1212. In the wake of Mastrobuono, this Court has held that a choice-of-law provision is insufficient, by itself, to demonstrate the parties’ clear intent to depart from the FAA’s default rules. See Ford, 141 F.3d at 249 (<HOLDING>). Our sister circuits have reached the same
holding that a contracts choiceoflaw provision did not determine the scope of an arbitration clause holding that there was no conflict between a contracts arbitration clause and its venue clause holding that a choiceoflaw clause without more did not evidence contractual intent to opt into pennsylvania law governing arbitration standards holding that a dispute arising out of an insurance policy was not covered by the arbitration provision in the parties separate premium payment agreement because if the party had intended to subject this dispute to the arbitration provision it could easily clearly and unequivocally have done so either by including an arbitration provision in the insurance policy itself or by adding to the above arbitration provision holding that the trial court must determine whether an agreement to arbitrate was reached when several contracts the subject of a class action allegedly did not contain an arbitration provision