Administrative District Council 1 of Illinois of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, AFL-CIO v. Pierport Development & Realty, Inc.
Filing
54
MEMORANDUM OPINION signed by the Honorable Charles P. Kocoras on 9/16/2011.Mailed notice(sct, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT
COUNCIL 1 OF ILLINOIS OF THE
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
BRICKLAYERS AND ALLIED
CRAFTWORKERS, AFL-CIO,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
vs.
PIERPORT DEVELOPMENT &
REALTY, INC.,
Defendant.
10 C 7800
ORDER
CHARLES P. KOCORAS, District Judge:
This case comes before the Court on two motions. Plaintiff Administrative
District Council 1 of Illinois of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied
Craftworkers, AFL-CIO (“Union”) renews its motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11 (“Rule 11") for sanctions against the attorneys for Defendant Pierport
Development & Realty, Inc. (“Pierport”).
The Union also moves to set the
reimbursement and interest amounts payable under the arbitration award. For the
reasons stated below, the Union’s motions are granted.
On April 14, 2010, the joint arbitration board rendered an arbitration award in
favor of the Union and against Pierport. The arbitration award stated that if Pierport
failed to comply with the award, Pierport would have to “reimburse the Union for all
costs and legal fees incurred in such legal action and . . . pay interest on all parts of the
monetary award at the rate of 10% a year from April 14, 2010, to the date of the
payment.” Because Pierport failed to comply with the award, the Union incurred costs
and legal fees enforcing the award in court. The Union now moves for a determination
of the reimbursement and interest amounts payable under the arbitration provision.
With regard to this motion, the only dispute remaining between the parties is whether
the Union can recover, pursuant to the arbitration award’s reimbursement provision, the
$2,181.25 in fees related to the Union’s pending Rule 11 motion. Before the Court can
resolve this issue, the Court first evaluates the propriety of the Rule 11 motion.
As stated above, on April 14, 2010, the joint arbitration panel rendered a final
award in favor of the Union. On June 7, 2010, the Union mailed a copy of the
arbitration award to Pierport. Upon Pierport’s request, on August 11, 2010, the joint
arbitration board reopened the case and, at the end of the proceedings, sustained the
April 14, 2010 award. By letter dated September 20, 2010, the Union informed Pierport
that the joint arbitration board upheld the April 14, 2010 award.
On December 8, 2010, the Union filed suit in this Court seeking enforcement of
the arbitration award. On January 26, 2011, Pierport filed an answer to the Union’s
complaint and a counterclaim. The following day, the Union’s counsel informed
-2-
Pierport’s counsel that the statute of limitations barred any challenge to the arbitration
award and that he would file a motion under Rule 11 if Pierport failed to withdraw its
challenge. On February 17, 2011, counsel for Union again warned counsel for Pierport
of his intent to file a Rule 11 motion. The Union filed its Rule 11 motion, but the Court
denied the motion without prejudice and with leave to reinstate following resolution of
the claim on the merits. On June 13, 2011, this Court held that the April 14, 2010
arbitration award was final and appealable and that Pierport failed to timely challenge
the award within ninety days of receiving a copy of the award. The Union now moves
for sanctions under Rule 11.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 authorizes a district court to sanction an
attorney who, without reasonable inquiry, asserts legal contentions not “warranted by
existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing
existing law or for establishing new law.” The April 14, 2010 award was final and
Pierport received a copy of the award on or about June 7, 2010. Pierport had ninety
days, or until approximately September 5, 2010, to challenge the award. Pierport
moved to challenge the award on January 26, 2011, which is well outside the ninety-day
period. Pierport attempted to defend its untimely challenge to the arbitration award by
arguing that no final award existed because the joint arbitration board reopened the case
on August 11, 2010, and failed to issue another signed opinion. Pierport’s position is
-3-
legally untenable because the joint arbitration board’s procedural rules clearly state that
a written decision is final unless the arbitrators reopen the case and then decide to
change their earlier decision. Further, in light of the fact that the joint arbitration panel
informed Pierport of its decision to sustain the April 14, 2010 award, Pierport’s belief
that no final award existed is nonsensical.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Union’s Rule 11 motion and awards $2,181.25
in fees incurred for the motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). Because the Court grants
the Union’s Rule 11 motion and the motion was filed in connection with the Union’s
enforcement of the arbitration award, the Union properly seeks reimbursement under
the arbitration award for the $2,181.25 in fees.
Charles P. Kocoras
United States District Judge
Dated: September 16, 2011
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?