under the 1979 lease containing the arbitration clause, both directly and as third party beneficiaries. Particularly given the broad language of the lease, it was not necessary for a dispute to arise between signatories to allow PUD and Port to demand arbitration of this matter. There is no reason to distinguish between Plaintiffs and Crescent Bar Inc., which Plaintiffs own and control. PUD and Port waited eleven months after the lawsuit was filed to demand arbitration, actively litigating the case in district court. The parties conducted discovery and litigated motions, including a preliminary injunction and a motion to dismiss. Such activity is inconsistent with preserving the right to compel arbitration. See Van Ness Townhouses v. Mar Indus. Corp., 862 F.2d 754, 759 (9th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>) (internal citation omitted). We agree with the
holding that claims under the securities act of 1933 were arbitrable under a predispute arbitration agreement holding that a settlement agreement is an arbitrable subject when the underlying dispute is arbitrable holding that unfair competition claims are arbitrable holding that a partys extended silence and muchdelayed demand for arbitration indicated a conscious decision to seek judicial judgment of the merits of arbitrable claims holding that the nonarbitrable fraud claims had to be stayed pending resolution of the arbitrable issue because the fraud claims depended upon the arbitrable issues