A defendant who was joined to ongoing litigation was held not to have waived its right to arbitration, notwithstanding the actions of its co-defendants.  Al Rushaid v. Nat’l Oilwell Varco, Inc., 757 F.3d 416 (5th Cir. 2014) (No. 13-20159).  The district court had found waiver because the co-defendants had substantially invoked the judicial process to the detriment of the plaintiffs by engaging in discovery and motion practice.  Although the new defendant did not participate in those actions, the district court determined that they were attributable to the new defendant because all the defendants were jointly owned and controlled and the same counsel represented all of them.  Reversing, the court of appeals concluded, in what it described as a question of first impression, that the actions of the other defendants could not be imputed to the new party.  The court found that imputing to a party the actions of its codefendants merely on the ground that the entities are jointly owned or controlled or share representation would contravene the fundamental principle of corporate separateness.