because the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that the Defendants either invoked or threatened to invoke the arbitration provision of the Sears credit card agreements. We thus agree, in disposing of Count I, with the courts that have deemed a challenge to an arbitration provision, in the absence of an underlying dispute or imminent injury, to be nonjusticiable. See, e.g., Bowen, 233 F.3d 1331; Lee v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs., No. 07-04765, 2007 WL 4287557, at *5 (N.D.Cal. Dec.6, 2007) (concluding that plaintiffs “have not and cannot allege any damage because they do not have a dispute with defendants that they tried unsuccessfully to litigate as a class action”); Rivera v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., No. 01 Civ. 9282, 2002 WL 31106418, at *6-7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2002) (<HOLDING>); Tamplenizza v. Josephthal & Co., 32 F.Supp.2d
holding that the clause in the agreement allowing either party to seek injunctive relief until the arbitration award is rendered did not override the applicability of the  analysis which examines whether a party by its participation in litigation has waived its right to invoke arbitration holding that a dispute arising out of an insurance policy was not covered by the arbitration provision in the parties separate premium payment agreement because if the party had intended to subject this dispute to the arbitration provision it could easily clearly and unequivocally have done so either by including an arbitration provision in the insurance policy itself or by adding to the above arbitration provision holding that persons not parties to a contract did not have standing to seek declaratory judgment on contracts validity recognizing that plaintiff lacked standing to seek declaratory relief on arbitration provision because she did not file or serve any lawsuit alleging that defendant  or anyone representing any of the defendants has informed her that they will seek to invoke the arbitration policy holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive relief because they failed to demonstrate any likelihood that they would end up back in jail where alleged constitutional violations occurred