Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): their own courts,’ even when the controversy is governed by substantive federal law.... [H]owever, where state courts entertain a federally created cause of action, the ‘federal right cannot be defeated by the forms of local practice.’ ” Rosenthal, 926 P.2d at 1069. See also Collins v. Prudential Ins. Co., 752 So.2d 825, 828-30 (La.2000) (stating that “provisions of § 16 of the FAA governing the timing of appeals are procedural in nature and ... states are free to follow their own procedural rules regarding appeals, unless those rules undermine the goals and principles of the FAA,” but holding that under Louisiana law no right to an immediate appeal of an order compelling arbitration existed); Atlantic Painting & Contracting Inc. v. Nashville Bridge Co., 670 S.W.2d 841, 846 (Ky.1984) (<HOLDING>); Weston Sec. Corp. v. Aykanian, 46 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the party seeking to vacate the award has the burden of providing the court with the evidence to support its arguments (B) holding that under the faa  10a arbitration panels refusal to continue hearings to allow witness to testify the only witness with evidence of fraud not found from other sources was fundamental unfairness and misconduct sufficient to vacate the award (C) holding in the analogous context of a motion to vacate an arbitration award under 9 usc  12 that pjlaintiffs were required to serve notice through the united states marshal and that because the notice requirement expressly addresses the manner of serving notice of motion to vacate   the federal rules of procedure  relating to service are inapplicable (D) holding that the three month limitation of faa  12 on a motion to vacate an award did not apply to a state court motion to vacate because the procedural aspects of the faa are confined to federal cases (E) holding section 10 of faa is procedural and does not preempt state common law
Output (English): holding in the analogous context of a motion to vacate an arbitration award under 9 usc  12 that pjlaintiffs were required to serve notice through the united states marshal and that because the notice requirement expressly addresses the manner of serving notice of motion to vacate   the federal rules of procedure  relating to service are inapplicable