Co. v. Vienna, 744 P.2d 1175, 1177 (Alaska 1987) (''The purpose of a class action is to afford numerous individuals united in interest an efficient means to adjudicate claims.”). 18 . Op. at 50; see also id. at 53 ("Therefore, under the totality of the circumstances—particularly given the language of the arbitration provision and the unrelatedness of the two sets of litigation— we hold that Citibank did not waive its right to arbitrate Hudson’s UTPA attorney's fees claim and affirm this aspect of the superior court’s decision.” (emphasis added)). 19 . Johnson Assoc. Corp. v. HL Operating Corp., 680 F.3d 713, 717 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting S &R Co. of Kingston v. Latona Trucking, Inc., 159 F.3d 80, 86 (2d Cir, 1998)); see also Gray Holdco, Inc. v. Cassady, 654 F.3d 444, 452 (3d Cir. 2011) (<HOLDING>); Republic Ins. Co. v. PAICO Receivables, LLC,
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 holding that the party did not waive its right to enforce the arbitration clause recognizing that generally a nonparty to an arbitration agreement does not have standing to invoke the agreement but considering whether the nonparty could force arbitration because it was a third party beneficiary of the contract a successor in interest to the contracting party or an agent of the contracting party holding that the clause in the agreement allowing either party to seek injunctive relief until the arbitration award is rendered did not override the applicability of the  analysis which examines whether a party by its participation in litigation has waived its right to invoke arbitration holding that in ruling on a motion to compel arbitration a court must consider 1 whether the parties have entered into a valid arbitration agreement 2 whether an arbitrable issue exists and 3 whether the right to arbitration has been waived