With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". separate occasions, sought to litigate arbitrable claims related to the D.A. agreement: (1) in their counterclaim in the 1988 federal case; (2) in their petition filed in Baton Rouge Parish; and (3) in their petition filed in Orleans Parish. On its face, at least, it would appear that it is the franchisees, not DAI, that have invoked the judicial process. The franchisees make two arguments to support their claim that DAI has invoked the judicial process to their detriment. First, they argue that DAI and its affiliates are so related, and the claims brought by the affiliates so inextricably inte igation of the same legal and factual issues as those the party now wants to arbitrate results in waiver of the right to arbitrate”); see also Gingiss Int’l, Inc. v. Bormet, 58 F.3d 328, 330(<HOLDING>). We hold today that a party only invokes the

A: holding that forcible detainer action is cumulative not exclusive of other remedies party may have so that parties may pursue both forcible detainer action in justice court and suit to quiet title in district court
B: holding that a franchisor did not waive  his arbitrable claims by prosecuting the unlawful detainer action in california state court because that action involved different issues
C: holding that the nonarbitrable fraud claims had to be stayed pending resolution of the arbitrable issue because the fraud claims depended upon the arbitrable issues
D: holding that a settlement agreement is an arbitrable subject when the underlying dispute is arbitrable
B.