In Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Leland Stanford Jr. U. (1989) 489 U.S. 468, the Supreme Court expressly recognized, "there is no federal policy favoring arbitration under a certain set of procedural rules; the federal policy is simply to ensure the enforceability, according to their terms, of private agreements to arbitrate." ( Id. at p. 476.) In a footnote, the court also noted, "while we have held that the FAA's 'substantive' provisions-- 1 and 2--are applicable in state as well as federal court, , we have never held that 3 and 4, which by their terms appear to apply only to proceedings in federal court, see 9 U.S.C. 3 (referring to proceedings 'brought in any of the courts of the United States'); 4 (referring to 'any United States district court'), are nonetheless applicable in state court. " ( Id. at p. 477, fn. 6.) Thus, the court recognized a "state law may . . . be pre-empted to the extent that it actually conflicts with federal law--that is, to the extent that it 'stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.' " ( Id. at p. 477.) In Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Leland Stanford Jr. U., supra, 489 U.S. 468, the United States Supreme Court upheld a California state court order staying arbitration pending the resolution of a related lawsuit as allowed under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, subdivision (c) because the parties' contract contained a choice of law provision applying California law. ( Id. at pp. 470, 478-479.)