[brief] [...]  Dated: April 7, 2025  [...]  [...]  Telephone No. [...]  Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant Arc NJ, LLC  On the Brief: [...]  (Atty ID No. 080702013)  [...]  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Page  TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...........................................................................  iii  TABLE OF JUDGMENTS ........................................................................ vi  PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................  1  STATEMENT OF FACTS .........................................................................  4  A.  The Parties’ Arbitration .................................................................  4  B.  The PTA Arbitration .....................................................................  5  C. [...]’s Arbitration with the Owner of the Hackensack Project ...... 7  D. Arc’s Unadjudicated Hackensack Project Claims .........................  8  E.  Arbitrability Issue .......................................................................  9  PROCEDURAL HISTORY ........................................................................ 11  ARGUMENT ............................................................................................ 13 POINT I  THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT IT HAS JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF ARBITRABILITY DESPITE THE PARTIES’ AGREEMENT TO THE CONTRARY [PA42]  ..............................................................  15  A.  The parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability by incorporating the AAA rules into the arbitration clause of the Hackensack Subcontract  ..................................................  16  B.  The applicability of the entire controversy doctrine is an issue of arbitrability  .............................................................  18  POINT II  THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY DENIED [...]’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF  BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT AND COULD NOT LITIGATE THE MERITS OF THE HACKENSACK DISPUTE IN THE PTA ARBITRATION [PA21-PA22, PA43-PA44]  ........................................  22  A.  The Trial Court correctly determined that [...] could not demonstrate a reasonable probability of success on the merits because Arc could not and did not assert its Hackensack Project claims in the PTA Arbitration.  ................24  1.  The Trial Court correctly determined that the claims at issue in the Hackensack Arbitration are distinct from those at issue in the PTA Arbitration, and the Arbitrator did not award Arc any damages related to its Hackensack Project claims [Pa21, Pa43-44]  .............26  2.  The Trial Court correctly determined that Arc’s claims in the Hackensack Arbitration were not ripe at the time of the PTA Arbitration [Pa21-Pa22, Pa44]  .................................................................34  3.  The dispute resolution clauses of the parties’ agreements prevented Arc from bringing its Hackensack Project claims in the PTA Arbitration .......39  B.  [...] also failed to meet the remaining factors necessary to obtain injunctive relief ..............................................43  CONCLUSION  ..................................................................................................................45