In Maggio v. Windward Capital Management Co. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1210, the parties to a securities management agreement had agreed that any claim or controversy arising out of the agreement would be settled by arbitration "in accordance with the Code of Commercial Arbitration of the American Arbitration Association." (Id. at p. 1212.) When a controversy arose concerning the defendants' management of the plaintiff's accounts, the plaintiff filed a petition to compel arbitration and sought appointment of an arbitrator through ADR Services. The defendants opposed the petition only insofar as it sought appointment of an arbitrator through ADR Services. They contended the matter should be arbitrated before AAA. The plaintiff presented evidence to the court that ADR Services was prepared to arbitrate the dispute under AAA's commercial arbitration procedures. The trial court found the parties' agreement required arbitration according to AAA rules but did not require arbitration before AAA. Accordingly, the trial court granted the plaintiff's petition. (Id. at p. 1212.) On appeal, Division Five of the Second Appellate District emphasized that the parties had agreed to resolve their dispute "'in accordance with' the pertinent American Arbitration Association procedures." (Maggio, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at p. 1215.) The court then cited the relevant AAA rules and concluded that "an arbitration conducted 'in accordance with' the American Arbitration Association Commercial Dispute Resolution Procedures must take place before that body." (Ibid.) Accordingly, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and directed entry of "a new order directing arbitration before the American Arbitration Association." (Ibid.)