commencing an action will be assumed to have waived its right to arbitration when its use of the judicial process is clearly inconsistent with seeking arbitration at a later date.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Applying this law, Judge Weinstein' concluded that choosing to file a claim in court rather than arbitrate constitutes a waiver of the right to arbitrate. Id. (citing Digitronics Inventioneering Corp. v. Jameson, 52 A.D.3d 1099, 860 N.Y.S.2d 303 (3d Dep’t 2008)). I agree with Judge Weinstein’s well-reasoned decision that, if New York law applies, the decision to litigate disputes over unpaid claims in state court precludes Defendants from now seeking to compel arbitration with respect to those same claims. But see Grand Med. Supply, 2012 WL 2577577, at *2 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, I would reach the same result even
holding that mandatory arbitration agreements in the employment context fall under the faa holding that the framework for determining any disputed issues concerning arbitration must be determined in the context of the faa holding that the faa requires arbitration of age discrimination claims when a valid arbitration agreement exists holding that faa was inapplicable where parties involved in action are not parties to an arbitration agreement under which issues are referable to arbitration holding that the faa mandates courts to direct parties to arbitration on issues to which a valid arbitration agreement has been signed