Koczak, 439 A.2d at 480 (internal quotation marks, citations, and footnotes omitted) (explaining that "the Council’s omission of an order to compel arbitration from the list of orders deemed to be final set forth in [§ 16-4317 of the UAA] is consistent with the general rule that ... an order is final for purposes of appeal ... [when] it disposes of the entire case on the merits. An order to compel arbitration does not dispose of the entire case on the merits. Rather, the parties' rights and obligations are finally determined only after arbitration is had, or, if an arbitrator’s award is challenged, after a court enters judgment upholding, modifying, or vacating the arbitrator’s award”); see also Judith v. Graphic Commc'ns Int’l Union, 727 A.2d 890, 891 (D.C.1999) (citations omitted) (<HOLDING>); Umana v. Swidler & Berlin, Chartered, 669
holding that an order remanding an arbitration award is not a final appealable order when the order does not also vacate the arbitration award holding that an order compelling arbitration in an independent proceeding is appealable as a final order because in that context the order compelling arbitration resolves the sole issue before the court holding that where the trial court had referred the parties to arbitration but it was ambiguous as to whether the court had also dismissed the underlying case dismissal and referral to arbitration should really be construed as an order to stay litigation pending arbitration which under koczak and umana was not a final appealable order holding that the federal arbitration act requires piecemeal resolution when necessary to give effect to an arbitration agreement and mandates enforcement of an arbitration agreement notwithstanding the presence of other persons who are parties to the underlying dispute but not to the arbitration agreement emphasis added holding plaintiff waived right to arbitration by not simultaneously requesting a stay and an order of arbitration at the time of the complaint