Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters, an unincorporated association v. PRATE INSTALLATIONS, INCORPORATED, an Illinois corporation

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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,
v.
PRATE INSTALLATIONS, INCORPORATED, an Illinois
corporation,
Defendant/Counter - Plaintiff-Appellee.
Appeal from the United
States District Court for
the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 10 C 5431
Amy J. St. Eve, Judge.
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)

-- 1 of 2 --

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.

-- 2 of 2 --