Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Hartmann, 921 F.2d 507, 511 (3d Cir.1990) (overruled on other grounds) (citing AT & T Techs., Inc., 475 U.S. at 649, 106 S.Ct. 1415). A court may not deny arbitration “unless it can state with ‘positive assurance’ that [the] dispute was not meant to be arbitrated.” Autoradio U.S.A Inc. v. Becker Autoradiowerk GmbH, 585 F.2d 39, 44 (3d Cir.1978) (quoting Hussey Metal Div. v. Lectromelt Furnace Div., 471 F.2d 556, 558 (3d Cir.1972)); see First Liberty Inv. Grp. v. Nicholsberg, 145 F.3d 647, 653 (3d Cir.1998). When an agreement contains both a choice-of-law clause and an arbitration clause, the reviewing court will apply the substantive law of the state named in the choice of law clause. Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S. 52, 63-64, 115 S.Ct. 1212, 131 L.Ed.2d 76 (1995) (<HOLDING>). IV. DISCUSSION A. Plaintiffs’ Claims Are 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that there was no conflict between a contracts arbitration clause and its venue clause (B) holding that the party did not waive its right to enforce the arbitration clause (C) holding that the best way to harmonize a choice of law clause and an arbitration clause is to apply the substantive case law of the named state to the entire agreement including the arbitration clause (D) holding that when an arbitration clause has provisions that defeat the remedial purpose of the statute  the arbitration clause is not enforceable and that the language insulating an employer from damages and equitable relief renders the clause unenforceable (E) holding an entire arbitration clause is void and arbitration cannot be compelled where contract contained unconscionable clause and has a nonseverability clause
Output (English): holding that there was no conflict between a contracts arbitration clause and its venue clause