Opinion ID: 1037677
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Related Case

Text: Finally, we note that the district court’s ruling in this case may be contrary to that of another federal district court, which applied New Jersey law to a set of contracts involving BuildDirect that are substantially identical to the Quotation used here. Compare Aplt. App. at 177–78 (Order at 5–6, Walker v. BuildDirect.com Techs., Inc., Civ. No. CIV-11-800-D (W.D. Okla. Sept. 28, -8- 2012) (denying motion to compel arbitration)), with id. at 147–49 (Order at 2–4, Edgewater Promenade, 123, LLC v. Build Direct, Civ. No. 08-1128(JAG) (D.N.J. Dec. 29, 2008) (granting motion to compel arbitration)). We say “may be” contrary even though the results are different, because we cannot determine from the order in Edgewater whether the disparate results were compelled by factual distinctions. Of course, New Jersey and Oklahoma law may differ.