to resolve the arbitrable dispute. 145 Md.App. at 143, 801 A.2d 1104. Holding that the circuit court’s finding of non-waiver was not clearly erroneous, we distinguished RTKL, supra, in which we affirmed a finding that two defendants in construction litigation waived their contractual right to arbitration by filing cross-claims, depositions, and other discovery. See also Messick, supra, 152 Md.App. at 398-99, 831 A.2d 1144 (affirming a circuit court’s ruling that two defendants in construction litigation waived their contractual right to arbitrate by filing answers, initiating and participating in discovery, and not filing motions to compel arbitration until a scheduling order was in place); Gladwynne Co. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 147 Md.App. 149, 198, 807 A.2d 1141 (2002) (<HOLDING>). In Harris v. Bridgford, supra, 153 Md.App.
holding plaintiffs had waived their right to arbitrate where they had consistently resisted arbitration and only when an unfavorable judgment was entered against them at trial did they seek to compel arbitration holding that after two years of litigation the employer had waived any right it had to compel arbitration holding that a defendant that answered complaint filed a counterclaim participated in discovery and did not move to compel arbitration waived the right to arbitrate holding in motion to compel arbitration that personal jurisdiction is not created merely by a partys agreement to arbitrate in a particular forum holding that the party demanding arbitration had waived its right to arbitrate by filing eight months earlier a complaint against the other party to the arbitration agreement