claims against it is granted. Since this Court finds that all of plaintiffs’ claims against [Amex] are subject to arbitration, it further orders that plaintiffs’ cases against [Amex] be dismissed.” Id. at * 10. The plaintiffs filed a timely appeal. ANALYSIS Before we proceed to the weighing of the parties’ arguments, we think it would be helpful to set forth some of the issues which are not raised on this appeal. Specifically, these are issues which are commonly raised in the general run of arbitration cases with which this Court is faced. First, the plaintiffs are not contending that the mandatory arbitration clause contained in the Card Acceptance Agreement is not broad enough to cover their antitrust claims. See JLM Indus., Inc. v. Stolt-Nielsen SA, 387 F.3d 163, 175 (2d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>)- Further, while they certainly do not deny
holding that antitrust claims were arbitrable under a broad arbitration clause even though the claims concerned matters beyond the making of a particular contract between the parties and the performance of its terms holding that claims under the securities act of 1933 were arbitrable under a predispute arbitration agreement holding that antitrust claims arising out of an international commercial transaction were arbitrable despite the fact that they were not specifically mentioned in the arbitration clause holding that broad arbitration provision encompassed statutory and tort claims not based on the formation negotiation terms or performance of contract holding that tort claims were arbitrable because they arose out of and were related to contract