BANNER INDUS. v. CENTRAL, ETC., AREAS PENSION FUND, 86 C 3046.

Citation663 F. Supp. 1290
Decision Date10 April 1987
Docket NumberNo. 86 C 3046.,86 C 3046.
PartiesBANNER INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, v. CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST AREAS PENSION FUND, and its present Trustees in their capacity as Trustees, Defendants/Counterclaimants, and Pepsico, Inc., et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

Roger L. Taylor, Carl L. Taylor, Thomas D. Yannucci, Kenneth N. Bass, Kirkland & Ellis, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff/counterdefendant.

Neil Quinn, Richard Waris, Mary Anne Capron, Pretzel & Stouffer, Chtd., Deborah Fabricant, Stanley J. Adelman, Rudnick & Wolfe, Richard S. Huszagh, Edward J. Calihan, Jr., Chicago, Ill., Thomas C. Nyhan, Stanley J. Brown, Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn, Washington, D.C., John R. Climaco, John Masters, John A. Peca, Jr., Thomas L. Colaluca, Climaco Climaco Seminatore, Lefkowitz & Garofoli, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendants.

ORDER

PLUNKETT, District Judge.

In a memorandum opinion and order dated March 25, 1987, 657 F.Supp. 875, this court dismissed Count I of Banner Industries' complaint and referred the issues raised in Count I to arbitration. The court also held that Banner had not waived its right to initiate arbitration.

At a hearing before the court on March 27, 1987, Banner and Central States each sought certification of an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The court is of the opinion that its order referring Count I of Banner's complaint to arbitration and holding that Banner's time for initiating arbitration had not expired involves controlling questions of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion. The court further concludes that an immediate appeal of these questions may materially advance the ultimate termination of this litigation. Should the court of appeals decide that this court, rather than an arbitrator, should adjudicate the issues raised in Count I, there would be no need for the arbitration proceeding. Alternatively, should the court of appeals decide that the issues raised belong in arbitration but that Banner's failure to initiate arbitration within the time limits constitutes a waiver of any of its defenses, there would be no need to address any issue regarding Banner's liability to Central States.

Accordingly, this court hereby amends its memorandum opinion and order of March 25, 1987 to incorporate this order and to certify the following two issues to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to 28...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Flying Tiger Line v. Teamsters Pension Trust Fund of Philadelphia
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • September 30, 1987
    ...court in Banner Indus., Inc. v. Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund, 657 F.Supp. 875, issues certified for appeal, 663 F.Supp. 1290, subsequent opinion, 663 F.Supp. 1292 (N.D.Ill.1987), recently concluded [w]hether the requirements of [a statutory] safe-haven have been ......
  • Mason and Dixon Tank Lines, Inc. v. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • July 15, 1988
    ...is an issue "for the court since its resolution determines the arbitrator's authority over the dispute."), issue certified for appeal, 663 F.Supp. 1290, subsequent opinion, 663 F.Supp. 1292, 1295. See Tri-States Rubber & Equipment, Inc. v. Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pensio......
  • Teamsters Pension Trust Fund v. Laidlaw Industries
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • August 6, 1990
    ...of liability. Id. at 1250; see also Banner Indus. v. Central States Pension Fund, 657 F.Supp. 875, 882-83, issues certified for appeal, 663 F.Supp. 1290, subsequent opinion, 663 F.Supp. 1292 (N.D.Ill.1987) (the Third Circuit expressly found this distinction raised in Banner Indus. to be "pe......
  • Banner Indus. v. CENTRAL STATES, ETC., AREAS P. FUND
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • July 2, 1987
    ...The facts giving rise to the dispute in this case are set forth in our earlier opinion and are not repeated here. 2 On April 10, 1987, 663 F.Supp. 1290; we amended our March 25 memorandum opinion and order to certify the arbitration and waiver questions to the Seventh Circuit pursuant to 28......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT