Class Plaintiffs' prospective waiver argument, a defense applicable through the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, is inapplicable because it “applies to the recognition of arbitral awards, not to the enforceability of arbitration clauses.” Lucina v. Carnival PLC, 2019 WL 1317471, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2019) (finding such an argument is premature when seeking to compel arbitration since the court can “retain[] jurisdiction over the case and will have the opportunity at the award-enforcement stage to ensure that the legitimate interest in the enforcement of the ... laws will be addressed”) (quoting in parenthetical, Vimar Seguras v Reaseguros v. M/V Sky Reefer, 515 U.S. 528, 540 (1995)); See also, Moskalenko v. Carnival PLC, 2019 WL 1441127, at *9-10 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019) (same) (citing Lindo v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 652 F.3d 1257, 1280 (11th Cir. 2011).

(“[C]onclusive presumption of knowledge and assent applies also to the terms of a separate document that is incorporated into a contract by reference, even when the party resisting arbitration contends that he never received the incorporated document.” (footnote omitted) (collecting cases)); Moskalenko v. Carnival PLC, No. 17-CV-6947, 2019 WL 1441127, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019) (“Because the court finds that [the] arbitration agreement was incorporated by reference into the portion of the employment agreements that [the] [p]laintiff signed, the court finds that a written agreement to arbitrate existed between the parties.”)