Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters v. Prate Installations Inc. ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                              NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
    To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    Chicago, Illinois 60604
    Submitted October 25, 2011*
    Decided November 9, 2011
    Before
    FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge
    RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge
    DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
    No. 11-2452                                                       Appeal from the United
    States District Court for
    CHICAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, an                        the Northern District of
    unincorporated association,                                       Illinois, Eastern Division.
    Plaintiff/Counter - Defendant-Appellant,
    No. 10 C 5431
    v.                                                 Amy J. St. Eve, Judge.
    PRATE INSTALLATIONS, INCORPORATED, an Illinois
    corporation,
    Defendant/Counter - Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Order
    The Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters filed suit in the district court
    as a follow-up to our decision of last year, 
    607 F.3d 467
    (7th Cir. 2010), and the
    litigation was assigned to the same district judge who had handled that suit.
    Prate Installations filed a counterclaim. For several months the parties exchanged
    opposing views on the merits (including the preclusive effect of the decisions in
    the first suit). After the district judge denied the Council’s motion to dismiss
    *
    This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b).
    After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary.
    See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f)
    No. 11-2452                                                                   Page 2
    Prate’s counterclaim, the Council decided that everything should be arbitrated.
    The district judge denied the motion to refer the matter to arbitration, holding
    that the Council waived its access to arbitration by filing suit and engaging on
    the merits until becoming dissatisfied by one of the judge’s rulings. The Council
    has filed an interlocutory appeal under 9 U.S.C. §16. We agree with the district
    court's decision, substantially for the reasons the judge gave. It is unnecessary to
    repeat them. The judgment is affirmed.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-2452

Judges: Cudahy, Daniel, Easterbrook, Frank, Manion, Richard

Filed Date: 11/9/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024