Case Name: CHICAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, an unincorporated association, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. PRATE INSTALLATIONS, INCORPORATED, an Illinois corporation, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-09
Citations: 438 F. App'x 514
Docket Number: No. 11-2452
Parties: CHICAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, an unincorporated association, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. PRATE INSTALLATIONS, INCORPORATED, an Illinois corporation, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 438
Pages: 514–515

Head Matter:
CHICAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, an unincorporated association, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. PRATE INSTALLATIONS, INCORPORATED, an Illinois corporation, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff-Appellee.
No. 11-2452.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
Decided Nov. 9, 2011.
Gregory N. Freerksen, Attorney, Terrance B. McGann, Attorney, Whitfield, McGann & Ketterman, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant-Appellant.
Joshua D. Holleb, Attorney, Klein, Dub & Holleb, Ltd., Highland Park, IL, for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge and DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge.
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).

Opinion:
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 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.