Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01855/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01855-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
AT&T Mobility, LLC
Appellee
James Chelmowski
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted February 22, 2017*

Decided March 2, 2017

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 16‐1855           Appeal from the

        United States District Court

JAMES CHELMOWSKI,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

AT&T MOBILITY, LLC,

Defendant‐Appellee.

for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 14 C 7283

James B. Zagel,

Judge.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 

No. 16‐3539           Appeal from the

        United States District Court

JAMES CHELMOWSKI,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

AT&T MOBILITY, LLC,

Defendant‐Appellee.

for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 15 C 10980

Edmond E. Chang,

Judge.

                                                 

* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP.

P. 34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 16-1855 Document: 23 Filed: 03/02/2017 Pages: 2
Nos. 16‐1855 & 16‐3539    Page 2

O R D E R

These appeals are successive to Case No. 15‐1292. We have consolidated them for

decision and now summarily affirm.

In the earlier appeal, we affirmed the district court’s order denying James

Chelmowski’s motion to vacate an arbitration award. Chelmowski initiated arbitration

proceedings against AT&T accusing the cell‐phone carrier of failing to “port,” or

transfer, his cell‐phone number when he switched to another carrier. He also alleged that

AT&T improperly deleted some of his voicemails. An arbitrator ruled against him. The

district judge denied Chelmowski’s motion to vacate the award and granted AT&T’s

motion to confirm it. On appeal Chelmowski did not challenge the merits of that ruling

but instead lodged several complaints about the judge’s procedures for handling the

matter. We found no error and affirmed. Order, Chelmowski v. AT&T, No. 15‐1292 (7th

Cir. Sept. 25, 2015).

In the first of the successive appeals—Case No. 16‐1855—Chelmowski seeks

review of the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion to reopen the judgment. See FED. R. CIV. P.

60(b). The motion was nothing more than an effort to relitigate matters conclusively

resolved by the arbitrator based on events postdating the arbitration and other

irrelevancies. The judge properly denied it. We summarily affirm.

The second of the successive appeals—Case No. 16‐3539—seeks review of an

order from a different district judge denying Chelmowski’s motion to vacate a second

arbitration award involving the same essential dispute with AT&T. In the second

arbitration, Chelmowski again sought to relitigate matters already resolved against him

and predictably lost on preclusion grounds. The judge confirmed the award. He was

right to do so. The new arbitration was obviously barred by preclusion doctrine.

Chelmowski had no basis to argue that the arbitrator committed misconduct, 9 U.S.C. §

10(a)(3), or exceeded her powers, id. § 10(a)(4), but that did not stop him, and the judge

quite properly rejected these arguments. We summarily affirm.

Because these appeals appear to be frivolous, we order Chelmowski to show

cause why sanctions should not be imposed under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure. His response is due within 14 days from the date of this order.

Case: 16-1855 Document: 23 Filed: 03/02/2017 Pages: 2