As this is the only type of claim that Khazin asserts, nothing prevents TD from seeking to enforce their arbitration agreement. The Anti-Arbitration Provision is expressly limited to a single category of disputes: those “arising under this section,” meaning Section 1514A of the United States Code. 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(e)(2) (emphasis added). That section contains the Sarbanes-Oxley cause of action for retaliation against whistleblowers. See id. § 1514A(a)-(c). The Dodd-Frank cause of action, however, is not located in the same title of the United States Code, let alone the same section. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h). As Khazin asserts only a DoddFrank claim, his dispute does not “arise under” the relevant section. See Mathews v. Kidder, Peabody & Co., 161 F.3d 156, 162 (3d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). For the same reason, he cannot avail himself
holding that a plaintiffs claims arise under the statute that provides the federal cause of action he or she alleges holding action did not arise under the patent laws recognizing that under the discovery rule a cause of action accrues thereby triggering the limitations period when the patient discovers or should have discovered that he or she has a cause of action holding that texas cause of action for retaliation does arise under its workers compensation laws recognizing the cause of action