context: The franchisees contend that the district court correctly concluded that DAI invoked the judicial process through its affiliates, insisting that the affiliates were DAI's alter egos or at least its agents. This argument brings up an issue we addressed in Lawrence, and which the Second Circuit has addressed in greater detail since -- whether a party can invoke the judicial process if it litigates a non-arbitrable claim against a parly with whom it has arbitrable claims.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 58 F.3d 328, 330
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that a franchisor "did not waive ... [his arbitrable] claims by prosecuting the unlawful detainer action in California state court because that action involved different issues"
citation_a.sentence: Lawrence, 833 F.2d at 1165 (holding that franchisor who sued franchisees had not invoked the judicial process for purposes of a subsequent dispute); Distajo II, 107 F.3d at 132-33 (“only prior litigation of the same legal and factual issues as those the party now wants to arbitrate results in waiver of the right to arbitrate”); see also Gingiss Int’l, Inc. v. Bormet, 58 F.3d 328, 330(holding that a franchisor “did not waive ... [his arbitrable] claims by prosecuting the unlawful detainer action in California state court because that action involved different issues”).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 833 F.2d 1165, 1165
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that franchisor who sued franchisees had not invoked the judicial process for purposes of a subsequent dispute
citation_b.sentence: Lawrence, 833 F.2d at 1165 (holding that franchisor who sued franchisees had not invoked the judicial process for purposes of a subsequent dispute); Distajo II, 107 F.3d at 132-33 (“only prior litigation of the same legal and factual issues as those the party now wants to arbitrate results in waiver of the right to arbitrate”); see also Gingiss Int’l, Inc. v. Bormet, 58 F.3d 328, 330(holding that a franchisor “did not waive ... [his arbitrable] claims by prosecuting the unlawful detainer action in California state court because that action involved different issues”).