depositing it with the Llama Company, the NASD member, and Mr. Lewis’s employer. The heart of this dispute involves activities that took place during Mr. Lewis’s tenure at the Llama Company. Specifically, it involves events that were the direct result of a work assignment given to Mr. Lewis by Alice Walton. Accordingly, all conditions set forth in the unambiguous agree ment to arbitrate signed by Mr. Lewis with Alice- Walton’s Llama Company should be enforced. Alice Walton, as a person associated with the NASD member, has the right to demand arbitration. Mr. Lewis sought to avoid this result by dismissing the Llama Company from the litigation on the day before the hearing, but that does not bar Alice Walton’s rights. See American Ins. Co. v. Cazort, 316 Ark. 31, 871 S.W.2d 575 (1994) (<HOLDING>). In my view, Llama Capital and Llama Mortgage
holding that once the party seeking to compel arbitration establishes the existence of an arbitration agreement and that the claims raised fall within the scope of that agreement the trial court must compel arbitration recognizing that in reviewing ruling on motion to compel arbitration we first determine whether party seeking arbitration established existence of arbitration agreement 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 one should not be allowed to circumvent arbitration by nonsuiting a party that would subject the matter to arbitration holding that where an arbitration agreement between an employer and employee does not specifically provide for the handling of arbitration costs california courts should interpret the arbitration agreement  as providing  that the employer must bear the arbitration forum costs