with the turn of events after execution of the Contract. It strikes the Court as absurd to suggest that a Defendant must initiate and finance a claim against itself on pain of waiving an otherwise valid contractual arbitration provision. Finally, in light of the fact that Djody immediately moved to stay and enforce the contractual arbitration provision, the Court invites Enviro to explain how Djody has waived his right to arbitrate, since he has not “substantially invoked the judicial process.” See Miller Brewing Co. v. Fort Worth Distrib., 781 F.2d 494, 497 (5th Cir.1986) (“Waiver will be found when the party seeking arbitration substantially invokes the judicial process to the detriment or prejudice of the other party”); Walker v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 938 F.2d 575, 578 (5th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Enviro’s citations to authorities outside the
holding that the right to support is not subject to waiver by either parent holding that presuit activity does not invoke the judicial process and cannot support a finding of waiver holding that refusal to consent to search cannot support a finding of reasonable suspicion holding that the waiver in two previous contracts was insufficient to support waiver of the contract at issue in that appeal holding that a complaint that fails to meet the pleading requirements does not invoke the statutory waiver of sovereign immunity