WL 17173, at *2, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 428, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 1993). Thus, the court must look to the specific language of the forum-selection clause in question to see whether, despite MAK’s assertions, the cause of action stated in Count Eight properly falls under the forum-selection clause. In this case, the License Agreement states that, “[t]he United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan shall have exclusive jurisdiction and venue over all controversies in connection herewith.” License Agreement, Exhibit C to Motion to Dismiss, at 5. The Second Circuit has held that the phrase “in connection with” is synonymous with the phrases “relating to” and “associated with.” See, e.g., Coregis Ins. Co. v. American Health Found., 241 F.3d 123, 128-129 (2d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); see also Phillips v. Audio Active, Ltd., 494
holding in res judicata context that  final judgment on the merits is synonymous with dismissal with prejudice  holding that the phrases in connection with and associated with are synonymous with the terms with respect to with reference to and relating to which mean connected by reason of an established or discoverable relation holding the same with respect to an apartment holding that the meaning of doubtful terms or phrases may be determined by reference to their relationship with other associated words or phrases noscitur a sociis holding that statutory terms should be construed with reference to their associated words and phrases