Opinion ID: 859475
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: HCCL: Right to Arbitrate

Text: ¶29. HCCL also maintains that Myrick waived its right to arbitrate by filing its complaint prior to mediation and arbitration. A party may waive the right to compel arbitration where it actively participates in litigation or takes other actions inconsistent with the right to compel arbitration which substantially invoke the judicial process to the detriment or prejudice of the other party. In re Tyco Int’l (US) Inc., 917 So. 2d 773, 779-80 (¶¶27-28) (Miss. 2005). But Myrick filed a motion to compel arbitration, not a lawsuit on the merits. ¶30. “Parties seeking to enforce arbitration are to file a [motion to compel arbitration] immediately upon discovery that the controversy or suit is subject to an arbitration 13 agreement.” Century 21 Maselle and Assocs., Inc. v. Smith, 965 So. 2d 1031, 1038 (¶10) (Miss. 2007) (simultaneous request for a jury trial and a motion to compel arbitration did not waive arbitration). The idea that Myrick waived its right to arbitrate by filing a motion to compel arbitration is illogical. ¶31. As previously stated, Section 11-15-105(1) specifically allows a party to file a motion to compel arbitration if the opposing party neglects or refuses to comply. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-15-105(1) (Rev. 2004). HCCL argues that Myrick’s motion to compel arbitration went beyond a simple demand for arbitration. But the record does not support its assertion. The trial court properly rejected HCCL’s waiver argument; thus, we find that this issue is without merit.