Chicago Regional Council of Ca v. Prate Installations, Incorpora, No. 11-2452 (7th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 CHICAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, an unincorporated association, Plaintiff/Counter - Defendant-Appellant, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 10 C 5431 Amy J. St. Eve, Judge. v. 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.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.