[brief] First, there is no dispute that Plaintiffs’ claims all relate to or arise from the Wholesaler Agreement, which contains an arbitration clause.  The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., generally requires enforcement of arbitration provisions in contracts involving interstate commerce and preempts any contrary provision of state law.  The FAA applies as the Wholesaler Agreement grants Appellants the right to distribute [...] beer in two states, New York and New Jersey.  Unable to contend that the FAA does not apply, Appellants contend that the FAA is invalid under the Twenty-First Amendment – a baseless argument that has previously been rejected.  Second, arbitration is also appropriate under state law regardless of whether New York or New Jersey law applies.  The parties agreed in the Wholesaler Agreement that New York law governs their relationship.  That choice-of-law should be enforced because New York bears a reasonable relationship to the parties and their transactions.  Indeed, although the Court would not know it from reading Appellants’ brief (“Pb”) 90% of Appellants’ [...] sales are in New York.  [...] and [...] are also incorporated in New York, [...] was headquartered in New York when the Wholesaler Agreement was negotiated and signed, [...] maintains a New York State Liquor Authority license, and [...] maintains federal and New York wholesaler licenses and a New York location as required by 27 U.S.C. § 203 and New York Alcoholic Beverage Control Law (the “ABC Law”) § 53.  Thus, New York has the most substantial relationship to the parties and the greatest interest in having its law applied.  New York law, like the FAA, enforces arbitration clauses.  Third, even if New Jersey law applies, arbitration is still required.  The arbitration provision of the Wholesaler Agreement was the result of an arm’s length transaction between sophisticated commercial parties.  Although Appellants argue that certain New Jersey case law requires that an arbitration agreement expressly waive the right to litigate in court, there is no such requirement for an arbitration clause between sophisticated commercial parties.  Thus, under New Jersey law, arbitration also is required.  Fourth, as the trial court correctly held, Appellants cannot selectively enforce only the clauses of the Wholesaler Agreement on which they base their claims while seeking to invalidate the clauses they now disavow – namely, the arbitration and choice-of-law clauses.  Fifth, the trial court correctly determined that the issue of arbitrability should be determined by the arbitration panel.  The law is clear that, because the parties incorporated the [...] (“AAA”) Rules in the Wholesaler Agreement’s arbitration clause, the arbitration panel must decide the threshold issue of arbitrability.  This ruling too should be affirmed.  Sixth and finally, this appeal has been rendered moot.  After the trial court issued its rulings, and in a good faith effort to end the parties’ dispute and halt their legal spend, [...] retracted the termination notices giving rise to this lawsuit.  Thus, Appellants no longer face the loss of their [...] distribution rights or any cognizable damages.  If the trial court’s rulings are not affirmed – which they should be – this appeal should be dismissed as moot.