Civil Litigation,
Alternative Dispute Resolution,
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
Sep. 15, 2017
Jumping the gun on arbitrability in the 9th Circuit
Counsel should not assume that a general choice-of-law clause will dictate what law applies to threshold arbitrability issues and should include specific language opting out of federal law if the parties intend for state law to apply to such issues.
Michael S. McCauley
Partner
Jones Day (Los Angeles)
Represents clients in complex construction disputes, including at trial and in arbitrations
Daniel D. McMillan
Partner
Jones Day (Los Angeles)
Co-Leader of the Jones Day Global Construction Practice with a focus on Construction Domestic and International Arbitrations
Email: ddmcmillan@jonesday.com
Loyola Law School; Los Angeles CA
Dan's practice focuses on complex commercial, business, and construction litigation. As co-chair of the Firm's global construction practice, he represents owners, design professionals, and contractors in large construction disputes and in negotiating and drafting the full panoply of contracts for large projects.
Arbitration is often a preferred method of resolving disputes, and many commercial agreements today contain arbitration clauses. Arbitration has become so common that arbitration clauses are often treated as boilerplate provisions during the drafting process, with even sophisticated counsel and clients giving less attention to the arbitration clause than other provisions. This is particularly so as to arcane but consequential aspects of arbitration law.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In